Australian citizenship: a genealogy tracing the descent of discourse 1946-2007

Justin Briggs

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, to fulfil the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree

February 2009

Claim of Originality I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UTS or elsewhere is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of the thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

______Justin Briggs February 2009

ii Acknowledgements The research described in this thesis commenced in January 2002 under the supervision of Dr Deb Hayes who at that time was a Senior Lecturer in education at UTS. When she became an Associate Professor at Griffith University, Queensland in 2006 she graciously agreed to continue to supervise my research. On her appointment as Associate Professor at Sydney University in 2007 again Deb continued to supervise my research. The supervision of doctoral students is a difficult task at the best of times. Her ability to continue to supervise my research despite no longer being employed by UTS or living in Sydney was greatly appreciated. She has been a very patient supervisor. On occasions I would refer to the text by Professor Allan A. Glatthorn, ‘Writing the Winning Dissertation’ (1998) and confess this to Deb during subsequent supervision sessions. During these discussions Deb would gently rib me and ask, ‘I wonder what the good professor would say about that?’ This question would cause me to check the text to ensure I complied with both the good professor and the good associate professor. I sincerely thank Associate Professor Hayes for her guidance, encouragement and assistance in the completion of the study but most of all I thank her for being my teacher. Like all great teachers she has inspired me. Thank you Deb!

I would also like to acknowledge the Education Faculty at the University of Technology Sydney. I was granted a Research Training Scheme in December 2001 and it is through this program that the thesis has been developed and completed. Without my access to this federally funded scheme I would not have been in a position to complete the research. Additionally Professor Alison Lee (UTS) has provided me with a number of opportunities to present sections of my work at post-graduate student conferences and discussions. These conferences have provided further opportunities for evaluation by academics and students.

To all my colleagues in education who have encouraged me over the years to complete the study I thank-you!

i Thank-you also to Dr Rosemary Aldrich my sister-in-law who provided additional advice and suggestions about the content of the research having completed her Ph.D in Australian political discourse concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples at the University of New South Wales in 2006. Our intellectual conversations were always productive, informative and most helpful.

Thank you to all my family, particularly my mother Joyce and my father Malcolm. My parents have encouraged me to be the best I can in all aspects of my life. Their greatest joy is the continuing personal and professional growth of all of their five children, spouses, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Thank you Mum and Dad for all your love and encouragement!

Finally, to my wonderful wife Ireneanne Aldrich for her continued love, support and encouragement during the research and writing of this dissertation. Without her this thesis would never have been attempted. Ireneanne would often have to listen to me read sections of the dissertation and passages from the writings of Foucault. At times this was quite a chore for her! Ireneanne is my greatest teacher. I dedicate this study to her. Thank-you darling!

ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………….. i Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………… ii List of Tables and Figures………………………………………………………… vii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… viii Glossary of Terms………………………………………………………...... x Australian Citizenship Timeline (laws, government and society)……...... xiv Presentations and publications arising from the research………………………… xxi

Chapter 1 Statement of the problem and focus of the study ………………… 1 1.1 Introduction to the Study……………………………………………………… 1 1.2 Overview of the research in this dissertation…………………………………. 8 1.2.1 The significance of Australia Day and sourcing the data…………... 10 1.3 Citizenship as a discourse…………………………………………………….. 12 1.4 Background to the study……………………………………………………… 18 1.5 Citizenship, controversy and the production of truth………………………… 22 1.6 The importance of the study………………………………………………….. 23 1.7 The researcher within discourse………………………………………………. 24 1.8 Ethical considerations of research practice…………………………………… 25 1.9 Overview of the Foucaultian methodology…………………………………… 26 1.9.1 The Foucaultian nature of power…………………………………… 28 1.9.2 An explanation of Power/Knowledge………………………………. 29 1.10 Focus for the analysis of the period 1946 – 2007…………………………… 31 1.11 Summary of the problem statement…………………………………………. 32 1.12 Professional significance of the problem……………………………………. 33 1.13 Organisation of the research………………………………………………… 34 1.14 Summary of Chapter One…………………………………………………… 36

Chapter 2 A review of the literature…………………………………………… 38 2.1 Overview of the chapter………………………………………………………. 38 2.2 Search of the current research literature………………………………………. 39

iii 2.3 Growth in Citizenship Discourse……………………………………………... 41 2.3.1 The development of citizenship as a site for research………………. 42 2.4 The discourse of Australian citizenship………………………………………. 45 2.4.1 Australian egalitarianism and its relationship with Indigenous communities……………………………………………………………… 49 2.4.2 Citizenship and Media Constructions………………………………. 52 2.4.3 Discontinuity and individual citizenship: David Hicks as a media construction……………………………………………………………….. 54 2.5 Reasons for the utilisation of the Foucaultian method………………………... 57 2.5.1 Power/knowledge and citizenship…………………………………... 61 2.6 The literature as methodology ………………………………………………... 63 2.6.1 Archaeology and Genealogy: an overview…………………………. 64 2.6.2 Postmodernism, Poststructuralism and Citizenship………………… 68 2.6.3 The nature and function of discourses as sites of regulation and resistance ...... 70 2.7 Summary of Chapter Two…………………………………………………….. 72

Chapter 3 Citizenship discourse and its exteriorities…………………………. 74 3.1 Citizenship and its exteriorities……………………………………………….. 74 3.2 Globalisation and citizenship…………………………………………………. 75 3.3 Localisation, democracy and citizenship……………………………………... 80 3.4 Capitalism and neo-liberalism………………………………………………... 81 3.4.1 Social compliance and economics………………………………….. 88 3.5 Summary of Chapter Three…………………………………………………… 90

Chapter 4 The methodology of the study………………………………………. 92 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 92 4.2 A description of the methodology in general terms…………………………... 94 4.3 The researcher and the choice of methodology……………………………….. 99

4.4 A definition of the Foucaultian methodology utilised in the dissertation…….. 100 4.4.1 Archaeology and Genealogy as methodology……………………………… 102 4.5 The collection of the data……………………………………………………... 103

iv 4.6 Separation of the corpus………………………………………………………. 104 4.7 Criteria for inclusion in the database……………………………………….... 105 4.8 The search process………………………………………………………….... 106 4.9 Procedures used to analyse the data…………………………………………... 107 4.10 The research context or site…………………………………………………. 109 4.11 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………... 111 4.12 A summary statement of the methodology………………………………….. 113

Chapter 5 The summary and discussion as the genealogy……………………. 115 5.1 Statement of the problem……………………………………………………... 115 5.2 Review of the methodology…………………………………………………... 116 5.3 Summary of the results……………………………………………………….. 118 5.3.1 The major products of the research…………………………………. 119 5. 4 Discussion of the results……………………………………………………... 121 5.4.1 The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969………………… 121 5.4.2 Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980……………………………………………………………….. 145 5.4.3 Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988…. 154 5.4.4 Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996……………………………………………………………………….. 161 5.4.5 The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007…………………. 167 5.5 A summary of the discourse in terms of its modalities, transformations and discontinuities…………………………………………...... 179 5.5.1 Australian citizenship discursive experiences …………...... 182 5.6 A discussion of the products of the research………………………………….. 187 i) A discussion of the products of the research…………………………… 187 ii) Relationship of the current study to previous research………………… 189 iii) Recommendations for educators……………………………………… 191 iv) Suggestions for additional research…………………………………… 193 5.7 Chapter conclusion……………………………………………………………. 194

v Chapter 6 Re-thinking citizenship discourse…………………………………... 195 6.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………… 195 6.2 Solving the methodological dilemma………………………………………… 197 6.3 Re-imagining citizenship discourse…………………………………………... 199

Appendices……………………………………………………………………….. 209 Appendix 1 The discourse of citizenship leading up to 26 January 2007………… 209 Appendix 2 Additional articles…………………………………………………… 210 Appendix 3 The five major concepts in citizenship discourse……………………. 229

References………………………………………………………………………... 243

vi List of Tables and Figures Figure 1.1 The relationship of the chapters as operating fields of the study with the ‘target’ or focus of the research being the ‘problem statement’ ……………... 35 Figure 6.1 The articles of significance in the archive from 1946-1955………...... 132 Figure 6.2 The articles of significance in the archive from 1956-1965…………... 143 Figure 6.3 The articles of significance in the archive from 1966 -1975...... 150 Figure 6.4 The articles of significance in the archive from 1976 -1985...... 158 Figure 6.5 The articles of significance in the archive from 1986 -1995 ………..... 166 Figure 6.6 The articles of significance in the archive from 1996 -2006 ………..... 175 Table 7.1 Groupings of the five major concepts in the citizenship archive from 1946 – 2007 as represented on 26 January ………………………………………. 230 Figure 7.2 The five major concepts of citizenship discourse traced from 1946 – 2007 ………………………………………………………………………………. 233 Table 7.3 Groupings of the five major concepts in the citizenship archive from 1967 – 2006 as represented on 27 January ………………………………………. 234 Table 7.4 Groupings of the five major concepts in the citizenship archive as referred to in the Editorial and Letters in relation to key texts from 1946 – 2006 as represented on 26 January …………………………………………………….. 235 Table 7.5 The five major concepts in the citizenship archive as portrayed on 27 January …………………………………………………………………………… 238 Table 7.6 Transmission of dominant and minority perspectives on January 26 or January 27, 1946-2007……………………………………………………………. 239 Figure 7.7 Majority and minority voices and their perspectives1946 – 2006 …… 241 Figure 7.8 The major concerns of authorised voices from 1946 - 2007 242

vii Abstract This thesis is a genealogy which traces changes to the discourse of Australian citizenship. These changes were traced in the Australia Day (i.e., January 26) and January 27 editions of The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and The Sun Herald (SH) from 1946 – 2007. The dissertation used Foucault’s (1980; 1991a; 1991d; 1991e; 1998; 2002a; 2006b) genealogy supplemented with his archaeological method to provide an analysis of the discourse of Australian citizenship. The analysis was conducted by creating an archive of newspaper texts that related to Australian citizenship discourse. This archive represents the body of knowledge about citizenship as published in the specified print media and reflects the systems of thought that circulated the discourse at particular points in time. The archived newspaper texts related to Australian citizenship discourse contain traces of the social, political, cultural and economic beliefs and values of Australian citizens. The analysed texts were found in headlines, reports, editorials, opinion pieces, annotated photographs and letters to the editor that made-up the day-to-day history of the Australia Day editions. The texts that were produced in this narration in the SMH have provided data in the form of specific language use that defines the discourse of citizenship over the 62 year period. The language of these texts as reported in the print media represents the understandings of citizenship at particular times and also the discursive responses to contingent factors conditioning citizenship discourse including globalisation, localisation and neo-liberalism. The research links with Foucault’s (1980; 1991a; 1991d; 1991e; 1998; 2002a; 2006b) findings that the analysis of discourse is fundamental for understanding the nature of reality. This reality reported in this dissertation indicates a discourse that has changed and transformed over the analysed period of time. The discourse of citizenship has developed through the flow of rules and regulations that prohibit and permit what can and cannot be said, thought or spoken about citizenship at particular points in time. This form of normative thought, action and speech is culturally constructed and has been traced in the discourse through a mapping of specific language use related to understandings of citizenship. These types of knowledge constructions are artefacts of culture and reinforce existing power relations. This study

viii has attempted to unmask these relations of power to question the rationality of the practices and experiences of Australian citizenship. The genealogical method allows for the distillation of citizenship discourse as a history of social and political truths as seen in the print media from 1946 – 2007. The genealogy of Australian citizenship presented in this dissertation lays bare the characteristic forms of power/knowledge manifested in the discourse over the post-World War Two period of Australian history to show systems of thought pertaining to citizenship. By doing so it shows that current citizenship practices are not the result of historical inevitabilities but rather the result of the interplay of contingencies. By emphasising citizenship in this way the thesis offers insights into how it can be re- fashioned to offer greater individual freedom through an understanding of the games of truth that are played throughout all levels of society. The manifestation of power/knowledge in the discourse is further evidence that citizens exist in relations of power. These manifestations produced five distinct thematic discursivities. I labelled them as, ‘The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969, Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980, Relations of power between Aboriginal Australians and whites 1981 – 1988, Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996, The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’. In particular, a discontinuity was identified during the period Relations of power between Aboriginal Australians and whites 1981 – 1988. From this time in the discourse Indigenous Australians were permitted to criticise their treatment by whites. Subsequently this permission has become embedded in systems of thought. This thesis gives details of the products of the genealogical method related to the discourse of citizenship. It pinpoints the moments when individuals and social, cultural, economic and political groups played roles in the production, reproduction and transmission of truth from 1946 - 2007. Based on the products of the research it creates recommendations for minimising the potential dominations of social and political truths. It also suggests ways to re-think Australian citizenship to afford greater freedoms for individual thought, speech and action.

ix Glossary of Terms

Archaeology: a method of research that describes the archive. The archive is the term used by Foucault (2002b) to explain, ‘… the law of what can be said, the system that governs the appearance of statements as unique events’ (p.145). The archive, ‘… reveals the rules of a practice that enables statements both to survive and to undergo regular modification. It is the general system of the formation and transformation of statements’ (Foucault 1989c: 146). The purpose of the method is to determine the ‘episteme’ of an era.

Authorised voices: is used to include any person either citizen or non-citizen who is deemed to have authority either as an expert in a particular field or simply due to the public attention brought to them through the publication of their words or opinion or image in the data set. The use of the recorded statements of ordinary citizens holding authority in the discourse in addition to experts has previously been used by Foucault (1991a) and by the Australian citizenship researchers Walter and MacLeod (2002).

Citizen: an individual member of both a real and imagined community who shares rights and responsibilities within a democratic nation. Ideally citizens share common beliefs, values and ideals and feel that they are fully included in all aspects of the society of which they are a member.

Citizenship: can be conceptualised as the membership of not only a real but also an imagined community whose members have rights and responsibilities. Citizenship at its best provides citizens with processes designed to create access to equality of opportunity. The central idea of citizenship is to create equality of opportunity for all citizens so that citizens have access to participate in the ways in which they are governed. A discursive understanding sees citizenship as normatively incorporating the citizen into both the real and imagined political and social community.

x Discontinuity: a break in knowledge or truth that demonstrates that history can be viewed as a series of discontinuous discursive events rather than it being viewed as a continuous evolutionary progression or teleology.

Discourse: is the set of rules that regulates the flow of relations of power for the construction of a specific body of knowledge. This body of knowledge as a manifestation of relations of power demonstrates the ‘systems of thought’ that are at play at specific times. It can also be understood as a site where power and knowledge are joined. Significantly discourses are systems that regulate the way people perceive their local and global reality.

Discursive formations: are the building blocks of discourse. These are forms of specific language that frame understandings of areas of knowledge at points in time.

Discursive practices: the set of actions including the spoken and written word that produce discourse.

Enonce: is what Foucault (2002a) calls the statements or groups of statements related to specific knowledge, in this case citizenship, which allows for a positioning of what can and cannot be said at particular times in the discourse. For the purposes of this thesis the data indicates evidence to extend Foucault’s analysis to include single words as manifestations of power/knowledge. As such single words are also used in conjunction with statements or groups of statements as examples of enonces.

Enunciative modalities: Foucault (2002a) explains that the status and institutional setting of particular statements within discourse are known as ‘enunciative modalities’. This means that the statement or text has authority due to its institutional setting and because of the perceived authority of the writer or speaker of the text which allows for a positioning of what can and cannot be said.

xi Episteme: a purpose of the archaeological method is to determine the episteme of an era. Foucault (2002a) states that the episteme is, ‘… something like a world view, a slice of history common to all branches of knowledge, which poses on each one the same norms and postulates, a general stage of reason, a certain structure of thought that the men of a particular period cannot escape – a great body of legislation written once and for all by some anonymous hand’ (p. 211).

Genealogy: a method of analysing historical descent and the emergence of discourse through the tracing of transformations and discontinuities. The method focuses on the production and distribution of knowledge. The changes that occur are viewed not as historical inevitabilities but as the interplay between contingent factors. Its purpose is to question the rationality of current practices.

Governmentality: the different ways in which people regulate or govern their own thinking, desires and actions. Foucault also used the term ‘biopolitics’ to describe this form of self-regulation. Originally he used governmentality to describe the ways in which political and institutional power was used to control the minds and bodies of populations. Towards the end of his life the term was used to also explain ‘techniques of the self’ where individuals governed their own desires, actions and thoughts in an attempt to free them from discourse.

Ideology: the organisation of specific ideas, values and assumptions that frame views on how society should function. It is promoted through the political process and reflects active relations of power. It is also promoted by authorised voices and ideally enacted through everyday actions by individual citizens who are shaped by dominant ideologies.

Knowledge: in French there are two meanings for knowledge; ‘connaissance’ and ‘savoir’. For Foucault (1989a) connaissance refers, ‘… to a particular corpus of knowledge, a particular discipline… ’ (p. 16) e.g. the discipline of history. Foucault (1989a) also states that knowledge is also ‘savoir’, ‘… which is usually defined as knowledge in general… ’ (p. 16). Illuminating this, Marginson (1993) states that,

xii ‘Foucault distinguishes between knowledge that constitutes information (connaissance) and knowledge where the knowing subject – the student or researcher – uses the process of acquiring that knowledge for a process of self-transformation (savoir)’ (p. 251).

Neo-liberalism: according to Lowes (2006) neo-liberalism can be understood as, ‘… a political, social and economic agenda that is promoted as orthodoxy by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization and the multi-lateral agreements administered by the last. Some governments, like those of Britain, the USA and the European Union … support this agenda; as do international banks, multinational corporations and the Media. The central neoliberal tenet is that markets are inherently efficient and that the State and public sector have no essential role to play in economic development apart from facilitating the expansion, intensification and primacy of market relations’ (p. 172).

Non - discursive practices: the set of actions that create behaviours developed through the social control of bodies that are the products of discourse. This control can occur through institutions, political events and economic practices and processes.

xiii Australian Citizenship Timeline (laws, government and society)

1947 – The White Australia Policy, a series of laws enacted to maintain and protect Australia as a ‘white’ nation is re-interpreted to allow non-British Europeans to migrate to Australia.

1949 - January 26 – Australian Nationality Act comes into force so that Australians are citizens of Australia while also retaining a secondary position as British subjects which remains in place until 1984.

1957 – Albert Namatjira (1902-1959) one of Australia’s most renowned artists was the first Indigenous Australian granted similar rights to white Australians. In the archive he is sometimes credited with being the first Aborigine to become an Australian citizen. In practical terms this meant he was allowed to move freely around the country without seeking permission from reserve and mission managers. Under these rights he was also allowed to buy alcohol for his own use. Six months later he was imprisoned for buying alcohol for other Aboriginal Australians.

1962 – The right to vote a basic right of citizenship was granted to Aborigines. However, people found to be encouraging Aborigines to enrol to vote could be prosecuted under State laws. There was no compulsory voting for Indigenous Australians until 1984.

1966 – The international spotlight is focussed on Australia’s treatment of its Aboriginal people when Davis Daniels, the secretary of the Northern Territory Council for Aboriginal Rights appealed to the United Nations for support over the sacking of striking workers at Wave Hill cattle station. The Wave Hill walk-off was led by Vincent Lingiari an elder from the Gurindji people who wanted equal pay, equal rights for themselves and their families and most importantly land rights.

xiv 1967 - May 27 – Indigenous Australians are protected by Constitutional powers through referendum changes that gave the power to make laws affecting Aboriginal peoples to the Commonwealth Government and for Aboriginals to be counted in future censuses.

1972 – January 26 – Aborigines erected a ‘Tent Embassy’ on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra. It became a symbol of resistance and signalled the appearance of a new generation of Aboriginal activists.

1973 - Australian Nationality Act changed to the Australian Citizenship Act. The White Australia Policy is officially discarded. The Federal Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs established.

1977 – January 26 – The Northern Territory (NT) Government enacts the first law in Australia granting Indigenous peoples land rights with the Aboriginal Land Rights Bill (NT).

1984 – January 26 – The British Nationality Act 1981 (U.K.) came in to force in Australia, which abolished the status of Australians as ‘British subjects’. Compulsory enrolment and voting for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples introduced. 1984 - April 19 – ‘Advance Australia Fair’ officially replaced ‘God Save the Queen’ as the national anthem having been chosen in a 1977 popular vote. Previously the Whitlam government adopted Advance Australia Fair in 1974 but the Fraser government reinstated ‘God Save the Queen’ in 1976.

1988 – January 26 – The Bicentenary of the establishment of a British colony at Sydney Cove is celebrated. During these celebrations Aboriginal Australians protest at their treatment by whites. The Year of Australian Citizenship was launched to promote the concept of citizenship and to encourage eligible migrants to take up Australian citizenship. This promotion proved successful, resulting in a 45 per cent increase in the number of immigrants being granted Australian citizenship (Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research 1995).

xv 1992 – In the Mabo decision the officially recognised legal concept of Australia being Terra Nullius (land belonging to no-one) prior to the arrival of the British was successfully challenged in the High Court by Torres Strait Islanders led by Eddie Mabo. This resulted in High Court recognition of Indigenous communities continual ownership of traditional lands.

1994 – January 26 – A pledge to Australia was introduced for new citizens. New citizens make a pledge to be loyal to Australia and its people, share in the belief of the democratic process, respect the rights and liberties of other Australians, and uphold and obey Australia's laws. The pledge1 replaces an oath to the British sovereign which was used from 1949 - 1994. This pledge as apart of a’ preamble’ to the Australian Citizenship Act (1948) promotes a set of rights and obligations of citizenship. Australian citizens are also encouraged by the government to recite the pledge at Australia Day ceremonies. In November 1994 a campaign was launched with the dual aims of persuading approximately 1.1 million eligible residents born overseas and to increase the awareness of Australian citizenship amongst all Australians (Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research 1995).

1995 - July 14 – The Australian Aboriginal Flag and the Torres Strait Islander flag were proclaimed as flags of Australia under section five of the Flags Act.

1996 – The Wik decision is handed down by the High Court stating that pastoral leases do not extinguish native title. The Indigenous Wik people celebrate their continuing ownership of 6,000 sq. kms of land on the Yorke Peninsula, Queensland with a further 24,000 sq. kms of land ownership still to be determined.

1999 – January 26 – Proclaimed as ‘The Year of Australian Citizenship’ to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Australian citizenship. 1999 - November 6 – A referendum to replace

1 The pledge from ‘What it means to be an Australian’ by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) states, ‘From this time forward, under God*, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. * You may chose whether or not to use the words ‘under God’ (p.13).

xvi the current constitutional monarchy with a republic with an Australian Head of State was defeated with 45% for a republic and 55% against.

2001 - September 17 – Citizenship Day was introduced for Australians to take pride in their citizenship and according to the Commonwealth Government reflect on the meaning and importance of being Australian. The day according to the Federal Government is a time to celebrate democratic values, commitment to a fair go, equality and respect for others.

2001 – October – David Hicks, an Australian citizen was captured by US soldiers as an ‘enemy combatant’ in Kabul, Afghanistan. He was taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and detained without trial from late 2001 to 2007 before being released from U.S. custody after a hearing in a military commission. He was handed over to Australian authorities in December 2007 and later released from Australian custody in early 2008. He allegedly received training from the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan and according to the U.S. authorities was ‘in personal contact’ with Osama bin Laden. By associating Hicks with bin Laden, authorised voices cast Hicks as a terrorist of global proportions. His decision to train with Islamists for a war against the West before the events of September 11, 2001 and his support of the Taliban who had harboured bin Laden in Afghanistan created the conditions for an outcry in Australia against Hicks as a traitor whose citizenship should be removed. His treatment as an Australian citizen is discontinuous with previous systems of thought where citizenship was understood to bring legal entitlement including the right to a fair trial. It also suggested that the normative force of citizenship would need to be strengthened against future ideological and religious struggles.

2002 – A significant amendment to Australian citizenship was enacted with the repeal of section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act (1948) whereby ‘dual citizenship’ becomes a legal right. Australian citizens who acquire another citizenship from 4 April 2002 no longer have to lose their Australian citizenship. This enabled Australian citizens to acquire more than one citizenship, and brought Australia into line with the citizenship

xvii practices of many countries including, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, the UK and US . 2004 February 15 – A riot by approximately 100 young Aboriginal Australians against alleged police brutality occurred after the death of a 17 year old Aboriginal youth in ‘The Block’ an area of high social and economic disadvantage in Redfern, an inner city suburb of Sydney. The riot gains local and international media attention when Aboriginal youths threw Molotov cocktails and projectiles at the police near Redfern Railway Station.

2004 November – The Palm Island riot occurs after the death in police custody of an Aboriginal man, Domadgee. The riot on Palm Island in Queensland drew local and international coverage not only because of the circumstances of the death but also the Third World living conditions of the residents and the social policy of segregation. Over forty different Aboriginal tribal and language groups live on the island but none have an ancestral connection to the land. Palm Island’s history as a segregated island for Indigenous Australian communities began in 1914 when the Queensland government officially made Palm Island an Aboriginal reserve. From 1918 Aborigines began to be sent there mainly because they had agitated over wages or because they had continued to practise traditional ceremonies. According to Hooper (2007) the reserve became increasingly authoritarian and it was a kind of gulag with an arbitrary abuse of power.

2005 February 25 – February 28 – Four nights of riots by up to 150 youths occur in Macquarie Fields an outer suburb of Sydney with high social and economic disadvantage. The riots commence after two Macquarie Fields youths die as a result of a police car chase through the suburb in pursuit of a stolen car. The driver of the stolen vehicle is a known criminal; he escapes and is hidden by locals. He is eventually arrested, charged and imprisoned. The nightly riots gain extensive local and international media attention.

xviii 2005 December 11 – A gathering of up to 5,000 white Australians to protest the bashing of three life guards on Cronulla Beach the previous weekend by Australian youths of Middle Eastern descent. It descends into a daytime riot in Cronulla in southern Sydney bashing anyone believed by the mob to be of Middle Eastern descent. The riot gains extensive local and international media attention.

2005 December 12 – A gathering of up to 200 Australian youths of Middle Eastern descent drive to Maroubra and Cronulla after gathering at Punchbowl a southern Sydney suburb for a revenge attack at night against whites. Several white youths are bashed with extensive property damage occurring to cars and shops. An Australian flag is removed by a rioter from the flagpole of a Returned Soldiers Leagues (RSL) Club in Maroubra and burnt. The revenge attack gains extensive local and international media attention.

2007 May – The Australian Citizenship Act (1948) amended and is renamed The Citizenship Act (2007). It includes the necessity for prospective citizens to successfully complete a Citizenship Test. In 2007 the Department of Immigration was renamed the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. 2007 June – The ‘Intervention’ begins in The Northern Territory. The Australian military and medical personnel are sent into remote Indigenous communities in The Northern Territory by the federal government to police so-called dysfunctional communities. According to the government the intervention was necessary due to concerns about the sexual abuse of children. An exception was permitted under the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) to enable the Intervention to proceed in a trade-off of Human Rights. Communities that agreed to the government intervention also traded leaseholds for government assistance to improve housing, gain access to clean water, receive medical check-ups and to participate in immunisation programs particularly for children and teenagers. 2007 October 1 – A Citizenship Test, a twenty question multiple choice test for prospective citizens with questions about Australian culture, history and sporting legends such as Sir Donald Bradman, was introduced after the parliamentary secretary for immigration Andrew Robb claimed in 2006 that Australia’s immigration policy was

xix attracting people removed from Australian culture (Robb 2006). Concerns are raised that the test is discriminatory as in the first three months of the test refugees failed at higher rates than immigrants on skilled and family visas. The test was reviewed by the Rudd Federal government and a report was issued in November 2008 outlining proposed changes that emphasised the rights and responsibilities of citizenship based on the understanding that Australia needed immigration to realise its potential.

xx Presentations and publications arising either directly or indirectly from the research

Books J. Briggs Contested Spaces: The Cold War, Sydney, McGraw-Hill, 2005. J. Briggs Power, Prosperity and Promise: a history of the USA 1898 – 1941, Sydney, McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Book Chapters J. Briggs A Future for the Past: The State of Children's History, Scates, B. (Editor), Chapter Four: Webquests – What are they? Where to find them? Why use them? History Council of NSW, Glebe, 2004.

Peer reviewed publication J. Briggs The Unequal Citizen: Australians In The Era of Globalisation, ‘Teaching History Journal’, August 2004, Volume 38 No.2, History Teachers’ Association, NSW.

New South Wales State History Conference Presentation J. Briggs Re-thinking Australian Citizenship, Keynote Address, Australian Independent Schools History Conference, Australian Independent Schools, Kings School, Sydney 27 March, 2009. J. Briggs Power, Prosperity and Promise: a history of the USA 1898 – 1941, History Teachers Association Professional Development Day, University of Technology (UTS), Sydney, 22 March 2003. J. Briggs Webquests and Productive Pedagogies, Australian Independent Schools Conference, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, 3 August, 2002.

Victorian State History Presentation J. Briggs The Cold War: People, Places and Politics, History Teachers’ Association of Victoria, 25th Anniversary Conference, Melbourne, 10 November 2005.

Regional Post-Graduate Student Conference Presentations J. Briggs ‘The Unequal Citizen: tracing transformations of Australian citizens’, University of Technology Post-Graduate Student Conference, UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus, Sydney, March 17, 2006. J. Briggs ‘Advance Australia Where?’ University of Technology Post-Graduate Student Conference, UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus, Sydney, March 18, 2005. J. Briggs ‘The Unequal Citizen: Australians in the era of globalisation’ University of Technology Post-Graduate Student Conference, UTS Ku-ring-gai Campus, Sydney, March 17 – 18, 2004.

xxi Australian citizenship: a genealogy tracing the descent of discourse 1946-2007

Chapter 1: Statement of the problem and focus of the study

If thought is something we share, then so is reason - what makes us reasoning beings. If so, then the reason that tells us what to do and what not to do is also shared. And if so, we share a common law. And thus are fellow citizens. And fellow citizens of something. And in that case, our state must be the world. What other entity could all of humanity belong to? And from it - from this state that we share - come thought and reason and law. Where else could they come from? The earth that composes me derives from earth, the water from some other element, the air from its own source, the heat and fire from theirs - since nothing comes from nothing, or returns to it. So thought must derive from somewhere else as well. Marcus Aurelius, (2003: 38-39).

Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? Bertrand Russell, (2001: 1).

… individuals are the vehicles of power not its point of application. Michel Foucault, (1980: 98).

1.1 Introduction to the study This dissertation traces the descent of the discourse of Australian citizenship as published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald on Australia Day, (i.e., January 26) and the reporting of Australia Day, (i.e., January 27), from 1946 – 2007. The newspaper chosen as the site of the study, The Sydney Morning Herald, and its Sunday tabloid form The Sun Herald, was first published in Sydney in 1831. Since that time it has maintained a position as the pre-eminent broadsheet within the daily culture of Sydney and New South Wales. According to Souter (1981) in some respects The Sydney Morning Herald is modelled on London’s The Times and since the 1970s the New York Times in its promotion of quality and accurate investigative journalism. The technique of using media texts including newspapers for discursive research purposes has previously been used by the Dutch researcher van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997 and 1998) and more recently in Australia by Manning (2004; 2006 and 2007) both

1 of whom mapped the print media’s role in the transmission and production of racism. These researchers used newspaper texts as data for their research because they contain evidence of discursive formations. Indeed Foucault (1991a) used newspapers, or ‘gazettes’ from the 1600s as evidence for understanding the role of discourse in the formation of the subject. The tracing of the descent tracks changes, transformations and discontinuities in the discourse of Australian citizenship over the period of time. Citizenship is mainly understood within the literature as a legal-political set of rights and responsibilities that citizens have at birth or are granted as part of a democratic social contract (Marshall 1949; Habermas 1989; Lane 1990). This legal-political structure is seen as an evolutionary progression that continually refines and improves citizenship (Marshall 1949; Habermas 1989). Viewing citizenship as a discourse however allows for a more nuanced understanding of the changes and transformations that occur to it over time. From this discursive position citizenship can be seen not only as a legal-political reality but importantly as an emerging site for the transmission of cultural identity. The transmission of cultural identity has increasingly become a site for the construction of truth in what is known as the ‘culture war’. McKnight (2005) states that the culture war, ‘… is about deeply held but slippery concepts such as social cohesion in a multicultural society; it is about ‘family values’; it is about the national identity of Australia and Australian values; it is about relations between the Indigenous people of Australia and the non-Indigenous … and it is about Western values …’ (p. 141). The identification of cultural constructions of knowledge is important because they reinforce existing relations of power. This construction of truth is manifested in the discourse of citizenship. A discourse is the set of rules that regulates the flow of relations of power for the construction of a specific body of knowledge. This body of knowledge as a manifestation of relations of power demonstrates the systems of thought that are at play at specific times in the discourse. As Foucault (1998) states, ‘… it is in discourse that power and knowledge are joined together’ (p. 100). In relation to this thesis discourses are systems that regulate the way citizens perceive their local and global reality.

2 The dissertation uses Foucault’s (1991a; 1991d; 1991e; 1998) genealogical method which is a type of historical research to trace the descent of the discourse. Conventional historical methods would generally emphasise cause and effect and view current Australian citizenship as an inevitable progression and improvement on past practices. This inevitable progression is seen in the literature; for instance in the work of Hirst (2002) and Galligan and Roberts (2004). The genealogical approach in this dissertation emphasises the discursive nature of citizenship and tracks the changes from the position of the interplay of contingencies. This emphasis on the methodological consideration of the thesis potentially allows for the construction of alternative insights into the nature of citizenship. This tracing of the descent of discourse shows the relations of power in the social and political development of truth and knowledge. Through detailed and systematic analysis as applied in this dissertation, discourses reveal the workings of social, cultural, political and economic relations of power. Discourses develop over time through discursive practices that permeate all layers of society from individuals to governments, organisations and institutions including media organisations (Foucault 1980). Discourses are networks of relations of power at play throughout society. Discourses also illustrate that relations of power are potentially oppressive as well as being productive. Foucault (2002a) states discourses are significant because as practices they, ‘…systematically form the objects of which they speak’ (p. 54). The building blocks of discourse are discursive formations (Foucault 2002a). These are forms of language that frame understandings of areas of knowledge at specific points in time. Discursive formations include words, phrases and statements which overtime become the building blocks of discourse. Through the analysis of words, phrases and statements within a specific discourse the limits of knowledge can be traced to determine its descent. This tracing can show when a discourse changed, how contingent factors came into play to change the discourse and the discursive methods by which groups in society are enabled or excluded. The purpose of the application of the genealogical method is to produce what Foucault (1991d) calls ‘effective history’2. The use of genealogy as a Foucaultian method

2 See Michel Foucault (1991d), ‘Nietzsche, Geneaology, History’, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, in The Foucault Reader, pp.86-88 for a detailed discussion of ‘effective history’.

3 demonstrates that current citizenship practices can be imagined not as historical inevitabilities but as the result of the interplay of contingent factors. By establishing that citizenship has discursive qualities it can be refashioned to imagine society in different ways that allow for a greater expression of human freedom. This is the fundamental purpose of the research. This dissertation specifically researches how discursive practices have been used in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald to communicate understandings of citizenship and the beliefs and values of both dominant and minority groups in Australian society. It shows how these understandings as cultural constructions of meaning have changed over time. These changing understandings and the subsequent development of new knowledge can be seen as ruptures to previously held beliefs. These ruptures in the form of transformations and discontinuities demonstrate that knowledge is culturally constructed as political truths by citizens who are members of both a real and imagined national community. These social and political truths produce and re-produce the values and beliefs of dominant groups through all layers of society. The dissertation presents evidence of disciplinary and regulatory regimes in systems of thought that shape attitudes and actions of individual citizens through networks of power. The research is grounded in the historical research of Foucault who through his investigations sees the use of discursive language not simply as a tool for communication but as a vessel for the flow of relations of power manifested in what he calls ‘power/knowledge’3. Other research methods by different researchers could have yielded similar outcomes in this dissertation but Foucault’s research and his methods have been chosen as he is regarded as a seminal influence on the analysis of discourse (Deleuze 1999). He is also considered to be ‘a founder of discursivity’ (Rabinow 1991). By using Foucault’s research methods as a basis for the methodology I attempt to bring ‘a new perspective’ to Australian citizenship rather than through the use of more conventional historical approaches.

3 For a brief discussion of ‘power-knowledge’ see Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, pp.98-99. Further, according to Colin Gordon (1980: ix) power-knowledge is a fundamental theme of Foucault’s historical studies and a fundamental question concerning our present. See also Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, edited by Colin Gordon, which contains a number of selected interviews and other writings from 1972 – 1977.

4 In his genealogical studies he views knowledge as an expression of the relations of power (Foucault 1980). He sees the relations of power as paramount to the formation of knowledge. Thus to understand society and the actions and beliefs of individual citizens it is vital to investigate the workings of power in all its forms through the analysis of discursive texts. In this way power is unmasked and knowledge is seen as a social and political construction that can be re-imagined and constructed with this understanding in mind. This dissertation analyses the relations of power manifested within print media texts in the period 1946-2007 and shows the discourse of citizenship as a dynamic of ‘truth production’. The research practice used in this dissertation sees language as an intricate web of social and discursive relations. Within this framework, the dissertation focuses on the language in the texts that provide understandings of Australian citizenship and citizens at specific points in time. These understandings as published in the press are manifestations of power/knowledge in that they impose boundaries as to what is acceptable to know, be spoken, claimed, asked and understood within the discourse of citizenship. It is these boundaries that establish the limits of citizenship discourse at specific historical moments. Changes to these understandings demonstrate transformations and ruptures in knowledge and according to Foucault (1980) also show the workings of the relations of power. In this dissertation Australian citizenship as sets of social and political truths sees the main concerns within the discourse of Australian citizenship focussing on relations of power between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous and the ongoing education, health and wealth divide between these groups. Other concerns expressed in the discourse included relations of power between Anglo-Celts4 or whites5 and all non-whites, and towards the

4 The term Anglo-Celts is used to denote people of British, Scottish, Welsh and Irish descent. The term, ‘Anglo-Celts’ is used here not to diminish the resistant role of the Irish in Australia as , ‘... it was the Irish and their resistance to English political, religious and social dominance during the 19th and early 20th centuries that prevented Australia from becoming merely a little England’ (O’Farrell, 2004: 28). According to Patrick O'Farrell (1986), ‘The distinctive Australian identity was not born in the bush, nor at Anzac Cove: these were merely situations for its expression. No; it was born in Irishness protesting against the extremes of Englishness’. From ‘The Irish in Australia’ sited in the SMH Friday, January 16, 2004 p.28 "Irishness the core of our character" Edited by Suzy Baldwin. Obituary by Elizabeth Malcolm for Patrick James O'Farrell (1933 – 2003). Despite this resistance to the British it cannot be argued that the Irish in Australia were not complicit in the dispossession of Indigenous communities.

5 The term ‘whites’ and other words associated with ‘race’ are used with the understanding that they could be considered a form of racial stereotyping that reproduce racism. This is not the intent of their use. They are used in this dissertation in the same way that studies by the Australian historian Henry Reynolds and the Dutch researcher Teun van

5 end of the study, whites and people of Middle Eastern descent. An additional concern in the discourse was the identification of an erosion of traditional understandings of egalitarianism as a tenet of the Australian social contract. Through the search for evidence of power/knowledge and by the selection of the time period 1946-2007, the dissertation critiques current social practice and attempts to produce new knowledge about citizenship in the form of a genealogy of the discourse of Australian citizenship. The dissertation provides evidence of how knowledge of citizenship has changed over time and how citizenship has been used to promote and reproduce the beliefs and values of different groups in society. In using the past to assist in explaining the present this investigation questions the rationality of current citizenship. Foucault (1980) calls this technique ‘a history of the present’ resulting in what he calls ‘effective history’ (1991d). Foucault viewed individuals as ‘subjects’ of discourse in that they are produced through discursive practices. However, Foucault also believed that subjects had the capacity to break free of discursive practices and minimise the potentially dominating effects of power6. Foucault used different philosophical ‘frames’ within his research as he added to his findings in the light of different research interests. According to Foucault (1974) these shifting frames of reference are philosophical tools that allow researchers to find new understandings on the workings of power. In relation to this dissertation the workings of power can help researchers establish clearer understandings of the productive nature of power in the construction of subjectivity and therefore its effects on citizenship. Foucault employed this research strategy as new systems of thought confronted his previously stated positions and views. Within this dissertation these philosophical tools are used to acknowledge that the problem of the identification, analysis and understanding of the discourse of citizenship is highly complex and a complex yet cohesive methodology is required to create new understandings on this topic. By utilising some of Foucault’s philosophical tools within this dissertation I demonstrate a willingness to harmonise differing interpretations to find their cohesive properties. By

Dijk’s use the term ‘whites’ and ‘white groups’ for instance in their studies of history and racism in Western societies. The term ‘whites’ is used in the archive by Indigenous Australians to denote people of Anglo-Celtic descent. 6 This view becomes more evident in Foucault’s texts, interviews and lectures from 1973 - 1984.

6 employing this method I recognise that this form research has provided findings that would not necessarily occur through the adoption of traditional empirical analysis. Foucaultian historical research confronts the empiricist and rationalist connection to the Enlightenment project, which emphasises the use of reason in knowledge, ethics and the arts to become its raison d’etre. Foucaultian historical research shifts thinking to another gear. Unlike empiricism’s claim of moving society teleologically, this new gear bears credence to the suggestion that human thought has the capacity to move beyond the Enlightenment project into a new realm where new spaces of understanding are being created, where new knowledge can be formed and where claims to authority and truth are continually contested. It is a place where creativity is essential to construct new understandings of the workings of discourse and power. By using this research framework I have used my interpretive understandings and training as a historian to create a genealogy of the discourse of Australian citizenship. I have utilised conceptual frameworks not to retell an old story with a different perspective but to construct a genealogy. This genealogy or the political history of truth traced the discourse through the use of archived texts that manifested relations of power. These texts are the rhetorical evidence of how contemporaries recorded and understood their own times and how they wanted others to understand it. Foucault (1991a) also utilised newspaper texts albeit from the 1700s, as historical documents, most notably in Discipline and Punish (1991a) to add additional primary source evidence to his arguments. This facet of his research is rarely mentioned in the literature whereas van Dijk’s (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) research that utilises ‘contemporary’ newspaper texts is often quoted as the benchmark for the analysis of discourse. Hence, I also use van Dijk and other relevant analysts of discourse such as Fairclough (1995; 2001a; 2001b) and Wodak (2001; 2004) to inform the study. The data for this study was based on the collection and analysis of archived Australian newspaper texts from 1946 – 2007 that pertained to the representations, portrayals and constructions of identities of Australian citizens within parameters of their social, racial, cultural and economic status. These representations, portrayals and constructions of identities came from reports, editorials, opinion pieces, annotated photographs and letters to the editor published on the representative sample date of

7 January 26 (i.e. Australia Day) for every year from 1946 – 2007 in The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and The Sun Herald (SH). As the SMH is published from Monday to Saturday the SH was used when Australia Day fell on a Sunday. In addition, to add ‘weight’ and emphasis to the data collected and analysed on January 26, the additional date of January 27 is also used as a data source to allow for the use of texts related to political speeches, events, editorials and quotes from the previous day’s events to be included as part of the analysis of the discourse of Australian citizenship. Using Foucault’s genealogical and archaeological methods the process for selection of texts was established through identification of statements, phrases and words that directly related to the discourse of Australian citizenship from each edition of the paper on January 26 from 1946 – 2007. By reading, evaluating, analysing and theorising about the January 26 editions of each paper the dissertation presents a genealogy of Australian citizenship discourse that allows for a questioning of the rationality of current practices7.

1.2 Overview of the research in this dissertation The discourse of Australian citizenship is inherently productive in that it constructs images of others and the self. Through this construction of the image of others and the self, individuals imagine their place in the world and their relationship with members of their local communities, social groupings, their nation and ultimately the world. Discursive formations in the discourse of citizenship are constitutive in that they shape and construct individuals as citizens. Through this shaping of the individual, citizens can then imagine their place in their nation. Citizenship and nationhood are imagined by most members of a population because as Anderson (1991) has stated, ‘… the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion’ (p. 6). It is this ‘communion’ or the commonly shared beliefs and values of this imagined society that represents the construction of a citizenry. This construction of citizenry is demonstrated in the discursive formations found in newspapers which use the reporting of activities, speeches, events and texts on Australia Day from 1946-2007.

7 For additional justification of the use of SMH and SH see ‘4.10 The research site or context’, pp. 108-109.

8 The activation of the capacity of discourse through the collective imagination to envision relationships between others and the self, to produce a truth of citizenship is the focus of the research. The genealogical method utilised in the dissertation analyses the discourse by tracing how language shapes and creates our world by defining, framing and constituting knowledge and understandings. In this way language use also demonstrates the limits of the discourse and the workings of power. Through the tracing of the descent of discourse the research shows the ruptures, discontinuities and contradictions in the collective imaginings of these social relationships. These ruptures, discontinuities and discursive contradictions function throughout discourse to historicise the discourse. These provide points of reference where a change to thinking can be identified and contingent factors can be assessed. This historicisation therefore allows for a tracing of the changes to power/knowledge within the discourse. Discourse is never static and its constant changes are fertile ground for genealogical research. I do not propose within this dissertation that this genealogy will reach nearer to the ‘actuality’ of the past. What I have worked with as an historian are the archived textual documents from newspapers as the primary data. Although there remains some immediate evidence of how things were in the past, newspapers are by their nature, content and form a recording of daily life in the past. Newspapers provide the ‘language evidence’ of how people recorded and understood their times and how they wanted others to understand their times. It is this language evidence, the discursive formations, the building blocks of discourse, or as Foucault (2002a) calls them ‘the limits of discourse’ that provide the data for analysis. In this analysis of the newspaper texts I am not attempting to ascertain the veracity of the claims within each text rather, what I am showing is how knowledge is framed at particular points in time and how this knowledge changes over time. This analysis allows for the exposing of the mechanisms of discourse that permit certain facts, opinions and ideas to be uttered while forbidding others. This dissertation adds to the Foucaultian analytic of power where power is understood as being dispersed throughout society8. This dispersal of power shows that the struggle for truth is a contest

8 For a discussion on this process see Michel Foucault ‘The History of Sexuality’ pp. 94-96.

9 not merely in governmental politics which is the most obvious source of power but throughout all layers of society. Thus the ‘politics of truth’ encompasses the production and transmission of truth throughout all layers of society. Through a de-masking of this dispersal of power I am attempting to minimise the potentially dominating effects of power.

1.2.1 The significance of Australia Day and sourcing the data The study was conducted through sourcing an Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald for news articles, headlines, editorials, opinion pieces, letters to the editor and annotated photographs published on January 26 or ‘Australia Day’ from 1946-2007. Additionally the source of the data also included January 27 where the reporting of significant events on 26 January was published on January 27. The date9 January 26 was initially chosen to test a perception that cultural, economic and political groups and individuals have used Australia Day to encourage specific systems of thought regarding the nature and purpose of citizenship and social cohesion. This perception on the increasing use of Australia Day as a manifestation of power/ knowledge was strengthened by the article, ‘What it means to be Australian’ published in The Sun Herald (January 25, 2004) where the journalists Duff and Neufeld (2004) stated, ‘Prime Minister John Howard sparked a major debate when he criticised public schools for failing to teach our children true Australian values ... But Howard's comments didn't only cause a bitter exchange of views in political and educational circles. Coming as they did just a few days before Australia Day, a time when the nation is regularly convulsed by what it means to be a citizen, it yet again posed the dilemma: what exactly is the true definition of "Australian values"?’ (p. 52-53). Thus this ‘regular convulsion’ according to these journalists is common practice on and leading-up to Australia Day10. The perception of a regular convulsion was further validated when analysing the date of January 26 for articles relating to Australian citizenship. It became increasingly clear that synergies of practice connecting Australia Day and neo-liberal, capital and

9 The word ‘date’ is used rather than ‘dates’ as the focus is January 26; any article from January 27 used as evidence in the thesis relates to the reporting of the previous day. 10 Further evidence of this is presented in the Appendices in section 7.1 ‘The discourse of Australian Citizenship leading up to Australia Day 2007’.

10 democratic discourses began to increase from the mid 1970s. This occurred when political, economic and cultural groups began to use Australia Day as a platform to encourage normative thinking and behaviour by citizens. This supports Smart’s (2002) position that Foucault’s method of genealogy shows how power functions by demonstrating the precise moments particular mechanisms of power become economically and politically advantageous. Additionally January 26 became the sample date for the study as it is an important historical date in modern Australian history. It signifies the beginning of Aboriginal dispossession of traditional lands and the commencement of British and ‘white’ occupation and colonisation from 1788. The date ‘January 26’ has become known since 1946 as ‘Australia Day’ and for Australians it has developed into a national holiday from 1991 with a mix of celebration, citizenship ceremonies, survival ceremonies, protests and also general apathy. Normatively it is viewed and promoted as a time to celebrate Australia and its way of life as the ‘Lucky Country’11. For a dissertation such as this, there is no other date12 of significance in the Australian calendar which provides such a broad cross-section of positions whether white, Indigenous, ethnic or egalitarian that relate to Australian society from one newspaper13. As the sample date for this archival study, 26 January, became the point of data capture for this study as reported in the newspapers from 1946-2007. The sample date funnels and distils citizenship discourse and explores the relations of power that construct knowledge of citizenship and its transformation within modern Australia over the designated time period.

11 See Donald Horne’s ‘The Lucky Country’ (1964) for a discussion of this phrase. 12 April 25 also holds significance for Australians as, ‘ANZAC Day’. The justification for not using this date is discussed on p. 192 and p. 220 of this thesis. An example from the data is discussed on p. 130. 13 The date January 26 was chosen because it commemorates ‘Australia Day’ which had been commemorated on this day in NSW from 1946 and nationally from 1991. This means that the records available on that date have tended to encourage discursive texts that report on the nature of Australian society and individuals based on collective understandings of ‘Australia Day’ and its wider significance to Australians.

11 1.3 Citizenship as a discourse Citizenship can be normatively understood as the membership of not only a real but also an imagined community whose members share common beliefs, values and ideals. In this understanding this membership affords each citizen certain rights and responsibilities to the nation. This membership is acted-out through negotiation, conflict, compromise and consensus in that the individual citizen must think collectively to comply with laws and established practices while at the same time thinking individually to achieve the best for them-selves and their family. This normative commonality is contested not only at the conceptual level but also at the legal and institutional level. Australian citizenship is defined legally and institutionalised. Citizenship in this cognitive space is often understood as a system that binds individuals to the state through guaranteeing inherent rights. According to Petersen and Sanderson (1998) the, ‘…history of modern citizenship in western societies is a history of social and political struggle arising out of class relations in state formations. TH Marshall's analysis of modern citizenship distinguished three components - civil rights, political rights and social rights - which emerged sequentially with the development of capitalism’ (p. 2). However, according to Irving (2006), ‘… the definition of citizenship has very little to do with rights, or even obligations’ (p. 163). This confusion is not helped by the 1994 ‘Preamble’ to the Australian Citizenship Act (1948) which suggests that citizenship does confer rights. It states, ‘Australian citizenship represents formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia; and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity’. According to Irving (2006) the Preamble’s assertions are, ‘… purely aspirational’ … (and that citizenship brings), ‘… rights into train, but guarantees none’ (p. 163). According to Jordens (1994) this confusion occurred because, ‘… citizenship was conceptualised in relation to British culture and ethnicity, not in terms of the rights and responsibilities of the citizens of the State’ (p. 1). This contest of ideas is explored further in Chapter Two. A citizen can be defined as an individual member of both a real and imagined group who shares legally defined and institutional rights and social responsibilities within a democratic community or nation. In Ancient Greece, Aristotle in The Politics (1992)

12 defined a citizen as one who shares in ruling and being ruled. In modern times Marshall (1949) viewed the citizen as a social product of capitalism with evolving rights and responsibilities. Davidson (1997), ‘… emphasises that it is what a person does rather than what they get which makes them a citizen’ (p. 248). It has been generally understood that modern practices of being a citizen is a factor in the continuing refinement of capitalism (Marshall 1949; Habermas 1989; Turner 1994). There is an emerging understanding in the literature that citizenship and the practices of citizens are now being refined by market capitalism (Root 2007). The emergence of a new type of citizenship experience is explored in Chapter Two and Chapter Five. The etymology of the modern use of the title ‘citizen’ came to the fore during the French Revolution of 1789 when it was adopted by French revolutionaries as a symbol of equality for all and not simply for those who were born into power and privilege (Heater 1999). In this understanding, the central idea of being a ‘citizen’ provides the opportunity for equality of relations. There is no mention of the term citizen or citizenship in The Australian Constitution (1901) because at the time of its conception Australians including Aboriginal Australians were British subjects (Horne 1994). As stated by Pryles (1982), ‘(T)he only national status which Australians possessed was British subject status. Australians were either British subjects or they were aliens. Nor was British subject status confined to Australia. Residents of the United Kingdom, Canada and all other British dominions were also British subjects so in a sense British subject status was a nationality of the British Empire … There was … a common national status throughout the British Empire but no common rules’ (p. 1). According to Jordens (1994) the need for Australian citizenship, ‘… was imposed on an almost entirely indifferent Australian population from above, as a consequence of Canada’s moves to create a separate Canadian citizenship’ (p. 1). Pryles (1982) states that a separate citizenship was required because for instance, ‘(I)f Australia wanted to nominate a member of the International Court of Justice it could not simply nominate an Australian citizen as there was no such entity’ (p. 1). To address the necessity for a separate citizenship, a conference of experts on nationality was held in London in February 1947 where Australia supported, ‘… the

13 principles embodied in the Canadian Citizenship Bill’ (p. 1), resulting in the Australian Nationality and Citizenship Act (1948). The title ‘Australian citizen’ was brought into being by the Nationality and Citizenship Act (1948) which came into force on 26 January 1949. This meant that Australians now had a separate national status tied to the nation and only shared by Australians (Pryles 1982). However, a secondary status of ‘British subject’ remained in place until 1984. There have been a number of changes to this act. In 1973 the Act was renamed as the Australian Citizenship Act (1948). Legally and institutionally Australians remained British subjects until The British Nationality Act 1981 (U.K.), came in force on 26 January 1984. This act abolished the status of Australians as ‘British subjects’. In 1994 the Australian Citizenship Act was amended by Parliament, to include a pledge14 of allegiance to Australia by those wishing to become citizens. A further amendment in 2002 allowed Australians to have ‘dual citizenship’. Due to the many amendments to the original act The Australian Citizenship Act (2007) was enacted by the parliament to replace the act from 1948. Another amendment to this new act occurred in 2007 that required all those seeking citizenship to successfully complete a twenty question multiple choice test on Australian history, culture and language. The 2007 amendment to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to include a requirement for all potential citizens to pass a citizenship test can be seen as a socio- political attempt to promote an allegiance to Australia. This test is an echo of the language tests of the White Australia Policy (1901 – 1973) which were used to implement Australia’s immigration policy to keep Asians and non-whites from immigrating to Australia. The White Australia Policy successfully preserved the perception to Australians and the rest of the world that Australia was for whites only. Unlike the first language tests there are currently no examples on the public record of potential citizens being excluded because of a failed citizenship test. Potential citizens who do not pass the test can re-sit it. A government review of the test in 2008 concluded that the test is discriminatory as in the first three months of the test in late 2007 refugees

14 From 1948 - 1994 an oath of allegiance to the British sovereign and the laws of Australia was sworn by those taking up Australian citizenship. From January 26 1994 this became a pledge of allegiance to the people of Australia and its laws.

14 failed at higher rates than immigrants on skilled and family visas. A new test was to be written and implemented in 2009 based on the review. The citizenship act sets out the legal qualifications for citizenship but does not confer exclusive rights or entitlements. According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2007), ‘(T)he Act does not set out the legal consequences of citizenship in any substantive way, other than regard to the acquisition and loss of citizenship. The legal consequences of citizenship are mainly determined by other pieces of legislation … Whether there are any implied citizenship rights in the Constitution is something for the High Court of Australia to determine, not the parliament’ (p. 3). There are two different ways under the Australian Citizenship Act (2007) that a person can become an Australian citizen; through ‘automatic citizenship’ or through ‘application’. Automatic citizenship occurs; by birth, by adoption within Australia, by being abandoned as a child in Australia or by the incorporation of Territory by Australia. Citizenship by application occurs through descent, adoption outside of Australia, by conferral of the Australian Government and through a resumption of citizenship. In the granting of citizenship a potential citizen must have successfully completed their citizenship test (from 2007 to the present), make a pledge of commitment to Australia (from 1994 to the present), have an intention to live in Australia, be at least 18 years of age with some exceptions, of good character, have a basic knowledge of English, promise allegiance to the Queen of Australia (prior to 1994) and undertake their civic responsibilities including enrolling on the electoral register. Lane (1990) explains that Australian citizenship gives at least four advantages to potential citizens. These are requirements to enrol and vote at elections and referendums. There are opportunities to stand for public office, including Parliament, to apply for a passport and to be accepted as a non alien, and so not be liable to deportation15. Another responsibility of citizenship is to defend Australia if the need arises.

15 The rights of citizenship are emphasised in the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Handbook (1988) from the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Under the heading ‘Privileges of Citizenship’ it states that, ‘New citizens benefit from: - entitlement, under Australian law, to the same rights bestowed by citizenship as are enjoyed by people born in Australia; the right to apply for appointment to any public office or to stand for election as a member of parliament; the right as a voter to help elect Australia’s governments; the right to apply for an Australian passport and to leave and re-enter Australia without applying for a resident return visa; the right to have protection by Australian diplomatic representatives while overseas; eligibility to apply to enlist in the defence forces and for those government

15 From 1994 prospective citizens had to pledge allegiance to Australia. From 2002 Australian citizens could also be a ‘dual national’ that is a citizen of another country with dual citizenship provisions. Additionally since 1 October 2007 through an amendment to the Act a twenty question multiple choice citizenship test based on Australian history, geography, language and culture has been in place. Under this amendment all applicants after satisfying all other requirements must answer twelve of the twenty questions correctly to finally become an Australian citizen. Changes and transformations to Australian citizenship demonstrate that legal rights are altered to suit the changing needs of citizens in the globalised world. Before modern globalisation citizenship was understood legally and socially as the personal connection to a single unifying group who occupied a specific geographic location. In Australia in 1946 this single unifying group was generally understood to be ‘Christian Anglo-Celtic’16 or ‘white’. As practices of globalisation have multiplied so has the authorisation of personal allegiances to multiple groups. The miracle of multiculturalism has seen immigration to Australia from 1946 to 2007 result in one-in-four residents of Sydney having been born overseas. A practice of globalisation, the mass transport of citizens or ‘people smuggling’ from one country to seek refugee status in another country had dramatic social and political impact across the developed world and specifically to this study, in Australia. Between 1999 and 2002, approximately 12,000 asylum seekers, mainly from the Middle East entered Australia17 (O’Neill 2008). They were also called ‘illegal immigrants’

jobs for which Australian citizenship is required; and the right to register children born abroad as Australian citizens by descent’ (p. 3). 16 The evidence for this is discussed by Jordens (1994). She states, “(T)his culturally normative conception of citizenship was clearly reflected in the definition of ‘alien’ embodied in the Act. A nation’s understanding of itself is revealed by the categories of people it regards as foreign, alien or ‘other’. From 1948 to 1987 Australia’s citizenship legislation defined an alien as a ‘person who does not have the status of British subject and is not an Irish citizen or a protected person’. The image of Australians enshrined in the Act, therefore, was that of an Anglo-Celtic people” (p. 1)” 17 According to O’Neill (2008) there were 15 million asylum seekers located in makeshift camps mainly in developing countries when the 12,000 arrived in Australia. Mandatory detention of asylum seekers had commenced in Australia in 1992 under the Keating Government and had not been a deterrent to the asylum seekers. In 2005 a number of scandals related to the detention centres drew attention to the policy as citizens asked whether it was ‘necessarily tough’ or ‘unnecessarily cruel’ (O’Neill 2008). These scandals undermined social confidence in the policy which included the detention of Cornelia Rau a mentally ill German speaking Australian resident who was taken into custody in outback Queensland and Vivian Alvarez Solon a mentally ill Tagalog speaking Australian mother who was taken into custody from a Lismore hospital and deported to the Philippines.

16 ‘economic refugees’ and ‘terrorists’ by elements in society. Social commentators in the media reported this as an ‘invasion’ and a threat to social cohesion by these ‘boat people’ (O’Neill 2008). Globalisation and its various practices has become an important factor in constructing understandings of citizenship not simply at the legal or institutional level but also at the individual level. The struggle over the knowledge and imagination of citizenship is defined by specific language use particularly statements or groups of statements that have ideological meaning such as ‘assimilation’, ‘unity’ and also in the word ‘citizenship’ itself. In January 2007 the language of ‘self-determination’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ were officially removed from Federal government rhetoric by leaders who understood that language is loaded with specific political meanings that do not need to be spelt out to be understood. Statements such as, ‘(We) will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come’ by the Prime Minister John Howard in 2001 and ‘… that is what the Australian people want’ in 2007 hold coded messages. Manning (2004) has identified this facility of language and its utilisation at the political level labelling it ‘dog whistle politics’. Such words and statements demonstrate what Foucault (2002a) calls ‘polysemia’ where, ‘… the same group of words may give rise to several meanings…’ (p. 123). The discursive formations built around words such as ‘self-determination’, ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ potentially create a tradition that does not equate with the truths the government was establishing. The Howard Federal Government (1996- 2007) believed the continued use of those words was not in keeping with what, ‘…the Australian people want’. Within the discourse the removal of these words from the lexicon of government suggests Foucault’s findings18 on the workings of power to be utilitarian. That is the genealogy demonstrates that the appropriation of words, terms and statements that were seemingly acceptable only years before can be viewed at some future point as not acceptable. It shows how meanings are inverted or silenced to create and produce new political truths which in turn attempt to create social cohesiveness through normative thought, speech and action. Social cohesiveness also has the effect of creating social divisions as those who are not or do not fit into the specific systems of

18 See Foucault ‘The History of Sexuality: 1’, pp. 92-102.

17 thought are marginalised. This in turn leads to an authorisation to those who are enabled to fear others. This form of ‘othering’ can be exploited for political, social or economic purposes by governments, institutions, groups and individuals. The limits of citizenship discourse in the contest of ideas is understood at the social and political level and this understanding or knowledge at its limits is fleeting, as the discourse of citizenship responds to new conflicts, new negotiations and new compromises. The social and political truth of citizenship is dynamic in that ruptures and discontinuities to previously held positions show that discourse shapes subjectivity while also being shaped by it.

1.4 Background to the study Any research into citizenship must deal with fundamental characteristics and aspects of society that influence individuals and social structures (Turner 1994; 2000). These are the contingent factors that produce modern citizenship discourse and include democracy, capitalism and social cohesion (Turner 1994; 2000). A basic premise of this research is modern globalised societies are characterised by ‘inequality’ through the acceptance of unequal social, political and economic opportunities. Indeed Marshall (1949) states that an effect of citizenship is to create social inequalities. This is in spite of ‘equality’19 being the central idea of citizenship with its rights and responsibilities which is nevertheless fundamental to just societies. This inequality is produced and transmitted through the institutional and discursive practices of capitalism (Foucault 1971b; Said 2005; Chomsky 1992; 2003; 2007). These inform, shape and modify citizenship practices. These modifications have led to current citizenship practices being understood largely through ‘… enlightened self-interest and market structures’ (Root 2007:9). Foucault (1988a) contends that inequality in the form of economic poverty is an ‘effect’ of capitalism not an ‘intention’. He states that, ‘… capitalism’s raison d’etre is not to starve the workers but it cannot develop without starving them’ (p. 113). In this model capitalism can be seen as a grouping together of a range of complimentary and contradictory forces that intentionally produce wealth and prosperity, for individuals,

19 Orwell (2004) identifies ‘democracy’ ‘class’ and ‘equality’ as meaningless words because they have multiple meanings and are highly culturally contextualised.

18 groups and nations that are enabled by its mission. An effect of unregulated capitalism is to create economic inequality which in turn limits social, economic and cultural expression. Australia as a globalised nation continues to acknowledge inequality as part of its growing prosperity (Saunders 2005). Traditionally inequality has been seen as the unequal relations of power manifested in Australian social divisions of wealth, ethnicity, gender, age and Indigeneity (Western 1983). However, inequality is also the unequal access to a nation’s civil society made up of education and health services which make- up the public sphere. Kent (2001) sees these rights as part of a greater whole of, ‘… universal human rights - in the sense of the totality of civil, political, economic, and social rights. Civil and political rights include rights of freedom of expression and rights of immunity, which include the right to life, rights to personal freedoms, and the right to impartial justice, as well as rights of political participation. Economic, social, and cultural rights, on the other hand, include the right to an adequate standard of living (consisting of access to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and social services), the right to work, the right to free choice of employment, and the right to equal pay for equal work’ (p. 278). Kent’s position can be summarised as the complex systematic reduction, control over and access to resources such as relative conditions of residence, housing, employment, health, welfare, safety, education and social status. It is through the denial, deferment or destruction of equal access to civil, capital and human rights that a citizen’s right to self-determination or freedom of expression is eroded or removed. According to the globalisation theorist Ong (1999), ‘(T)he contours of citizenship are represented by the passport - the regulatory instrument of residence, travel, and belonging. Citizenship requirements are the consequence of Foucauldian "biopolitics," in which the state regulates the conduct of subjects as a population (by age, ethnicity, occupation, and so on) and as individuals (sexual and reproductive behavior) so as to ensure security and prosperity for the nation as a whole. Under liberal democracy, biopolitical regulation (governmentality) helps construct and ensure the needs of the marketplace through a policy of acting and not acting on society’ (p. 120). In this sense there is a synergy between Kent’s self-determination and what Foucault calls a citizen’s ‘governmentality’ or ‘biopolitics’. According to Gordon (1991) biopolitics or

19 ‘governmentality’ helps to construct and ensure the needs of the marketplace through a policy of acting and not acting on subjects as members of a community and as individuals. Foucault’s use of the term biopolitics is clearly linked with the requirements of citizenship where the state regulates the activities of subjects within a community and also as individuals to ensure continual security and prosperity for the whole nation. According to Thompson (2003) inequality is largely sustained by political ideology, the power to persuade others to specific ideas and beliefs which then become institutionalised and radiated to other areas of society. In Thompson’s view society reinforces existing power relations through institutional and discursive practices thus maintaining and expanding inequality. In globalised societies inequality is authorised through the political ideology of neo-liberalism. This authorisation through neo-liberalism sees inequality as natural, inevitable and unquestionable. Political ideology within this dissertation is used to refer to groupings of specific ideas, values and assumptions that reflect active relations of power promoted by authorised voices and enacted through everyday actions by individual citizens. This understanding of political ideology is grounded in language. The analysis of language as a manifestation of discourse rather than through an analysis of human experience is fundamental to more complete understandings of citizenship. I argue in this thesis that ‘the discursive experience’ of citizenship is of equal importance to its political and legal reality. Foucault (2006) provides evidence in The Order of Things that the analysis of discursive language rather than an analysis of human experience is fundamental to understandings of the nature of society. As language changes consciousness it creates a habit of belief in citizens that turns political ideology into common convictions and understandings (Billig 2001). This can be summarised with Wetherell and Potter’s (1992) description of ideology as ‘the way in which people understand their world’. This understanding of society through the analysis of language allows citizens to construct meanings and coherent perspectives on issues, events and controversies in their lives and the lives of others. This construction of meaning and knowledge permit citizens to create a ‘Weltanschauung’ or world view that guides and constrains individuals to align themselves with particular belief systems. This world view

20 is never static as power also produces resistance through individual, group, institutional and governmental discursive events which can alter the order of discourse over time (Foucault 1971a). Foucault states in The History of Sexuality (1998) ‘… (W)here there is power there is resistance…’ (p.95). Resistance is productive in that it allows for the consideration of struggles over power, through relations of power, to be manifested in the discourse. The struggle between different world views has a social effect in assisting the construction of identity or positioning of the self and others within a discourse as a form of governmentality. This is a form of self-regulation that shapes a subjects thoughts, speech and action to the discourse. The constitutive nature of language and the discursive representations in the print media that promote and transmit knowledges of citizenship are the primary focus of this study. This focus on language to determine relations of power and the production of knowledge are used by Said (2003) in his text Orientalism. He uses the historical research techniques of Foucault (2002a) to trace the descent of discourse and the normative values and beliefs inherent in foundational texts. Said (2003) sees this process as, ‘… a complex dialectic of reinforcement by which the experiences of readers in reality are determined by what they have read, and this in turn influences writers to take up subjects defined in advance by readers’ experiences … A text purporting to contain knowledge about something actual … is not easily dismissed. Expertise is attributed to it. The authority of academics, institutions, and governments can accrue to it, surrounding it with still greater prestige … Most important, such texts can create not only knowledge but also the very reality they appear to describe. In time such knowledge and reality produce a tradition, or what Michel Foucault calls a discourse …’ (p.94). The institutional and discursive practices that promote relations of power within the discourse of citizenship can be found in the language of governments, private enterprises, institutions, community groups and individuals. This language evidence is recorded in texts and is a manifestation of power/knowledge. Everyday understandings of these relations of power by citizens are recorded in newspaper texts. These are the sources of data chosen for this dissertation.

21 1.5 Citizenship, controversy and the production of truth Since the late 1940s, citizenship has been imagined as an important aspect of Australian identity and has been extensively reported on by media. In this time it has become increasingly associated with controversy and an imagined crisis of identity (Duff and Neufield 2004). It is at these times of controversy that the collective imagination of shared assumptions, perceptions, values and beliefs become most unstable. It is through these controversies that competitive struggles create discursive construction where ‘truth’ needs to be sustained against competing ideas. Controversy exposes the discourse in that it allows for the examination of truth. Recently, the controversy over David Hicks and the Cronulla riots which are discussed in Chapter Two allowed for a continued examination of the truth which altered the collective imagination. As a general rule for the production of truth these examples show that truth is not stable. In the analysis of the discourse truths from authorised voices can also change on specific points and still retain their authority. Thus in general truths about Australian citizenship, rights and responsibilities, the relations between whites, Indigenous and immigrants and our understanding of the poor are not immutable they are not stagnant, they are refashioned in the collective imagination. This refashioning occurs through practices of production, reproduction and resistance at all levels of society. This refashioning is like fresh water when poured into still water giving the discourse ‘new oxygen’ and vitality. The understanding that the truth of Australian citizenship is a cultural construction allows for the view that current practices are not the result of historical inevitabilities but rather the interplay between a series of systems of thought that attempt to dominate in an ongoing production of truth. As Foucault (1980) states, ‘(I)n societies like ours, the ‘political economy’ of truth is characterized by five important traits. ‘Truth’ is centred on the form of scientific discourse and the institutions which produce it; it is subject to constant economic and political incitement (the demand for truth, as much for economic power as for political power); it is the object, under diverse forms, of immense diffusion and consumption (circulating through apparatuses of education and information whose extent is relatively broad in the social body, notwithstanding certain strict limitations); it is produced and transmitted under the control, dominant if not

22 exclusive, of a few great political and economic apparatuses (university, army, writing, media); lastly, it is the issue of a whole political debate and social confrontation (‘ideological’ struggles) (p. 131 - 132). In this way the control of truth prevents disorder and provides certainty in social, economic and political spheres.

1.6 The importance of the study Foucault (1971b) stated that an ongoing and vital task for society is to expose relations of power in all of its manifestations so that individual citizens grow in understanding of power/knowledge. This should occur to promote resistance and to counter the effects of power when necessary so that unmasked power cannot reconstitute itself into outwardly benign forms (Foucault 1971b). Citizens as part of the discourse are always both the agents and subjects of power, resisting, modifying and conforming to discourses in a fluid and flexible relationship. One way of exposing power in all its manifestations is to investigate not merely the workings of government, but the institutions that although seemingly neutral or independent of government promote the political agenda of the government of the day and serve the interests of its political ideology (Foucault 1971b). This endorsement of governmental agendas by institutions follows a model or pattern of transmitting the orders of government, applying them, praising those who obey and punishing those who do not obey the political ideology of the day (Foucault 1971b). In this way discursive events can be seen as constitutive in that they produce or construct behaviours through relations of power to align government, institution, group and individual to perpetuate a discourse for the benefit of dominant groups within society. Within this research the social practice of language as demonstrated in the print media is a primary site where the social, discursive and ideological relations of citizenship can be seen to be constructed, accepted and resisted. It is this power of words that Foucault (1989:101) states, ‘(H)as not the practice of revolutionary discourse and scientific discourse over the past two hundred years freed you from this idea that words are wind, an external whisper, a beating of wings that one has difficulty in hearing in the serious matter of history?’

23 This institutional use of power when aligned with government is complex and should not be seen as conspiratorial, as this study shows, media institutions discursively promote themselves as independent of government. As Giddens (1999) states media institutions are a force for the ‘democratisation of democracy’. At the same time they are capable of promoting the interests of political ideology in the fluid relations of power that exist between aligned discourses. According to Ferretter (2006) this demonstrates that discourses and consequently institutions which function primarily through ideology can also be sites of opposition and transition. This polysemous nature of discourse and evidence of this are discussed as findings in Chapter Six20.

1.7 The researcher within discourse It is not possible as a researcher to see the relations of power as manifestations of power/knowledge as an objective observer. I am shaped and constructed by these domains of power while simultaneously almost imperceptibly shaping and altering the domains of power through the governmentality of my actions, thoughts and language. As a research practitioner I cannot step outside the object of study, the Australian citizen as represented in print media from 1946 – 2007. Thus I cannot reveal a complete and absolute rendering of a solution to the problems of citizenship as a discourse. Those problems are: how the discourse has changed over time; how these changes represent ruptures and discontinuities; and, how power/knowledge has been manifested in the discourse as evidence of the production and transmission of the beliefs and values of dominant groups in society. Foucault (1977) addresses this issue by stating that, ‘(I)ntellectuals are themselves agents of this system of power – the idea of their responsibility for ‘consciousness’ and discourse forms part of the system. The intellectual’s role is no longer to place himself (sic) ‘somewhat ahead and to the side’ in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of power that transform him (sic) into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge’, ‘truth’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘discourse’ (pp. 207-8). The words and language I use carry the traces of culture, gender, sexuality, religion, age and social position. I have lived a privileged life with a university education

20 This is most evident in the archive in 1995 and from 1997-2007.

24 having received both graduate and post graduate degrees in History and Education. I have had permanent employment as a teacher for nearly twenty five years. While researching and completing this dissertation I have also had published two history text books for senior secondary students on American history and the Cold War. My personal, professional and world views are imbued in this dissertation. My aspirations for this dissertation are to provide an archive of Australian citizenship from 1946-2007 and to create a genealogy based on the data from the texts. The findings in this dissertation will potentially add to the knowledge of Australian citizenship but I acknowledge that in a Foucaultian sense this study is but one interpretation of the discourse of citizenship. The extensive research within this dissertation demonstrates that in the genealogy of Australian citizenship discourse and its characteristic form of power/knowledge there is a relationship between individuals, groups and institutions to promote a will to truth and as a researcher I am part of this process.

1.8 Ethical considerations of research practice Although specifically focussed on language, power and truth the research also has an ethical dimension. As a teacher I wish to gain in knowledge and to practice philosophy. Foucault (1989) states that, ‘… philosophy is a way of reflecting on our relation to the truth’ (p. 201). This process of thinking, reflecting and researching problems of truth not only increases the knowledge of the researcher but through its publication the knowledge also of others. Research has a transformative effect on the subject. This transformative effect of research is what Foucault calls a ‘technology of the self’. Technologies of the self are techniques that allow citizens to regulate their bodies, thoughts and actions (Foucault 1998). These technologies potentially free practitioners from discourse and relations of power through ‘a will to knowledge’ as a process of transformative construction. I acknowledge that my analysis itself is a social construction in that to reflect on the discourse of citizenship I do so in language. It is the means by which we carry on our daily lives together. Through this use of language I am not in control of the readers’ opinion of my dissertation but only in the content of my work. I believe that through the

25 language of research I can lead the readers of this study to the same interpretations and conclusions. There will always be equivocation on the applications of citizenship discourse and the multiple interpretations on how citizenship is brought into being through power/knowledge. This dissertation is not proposing a conclusion or an ultimate answer to constructions of citizenship rather it provides further evidence on the workings of power as seen in citizenship discourse and in discourse in general. As an example of a ‘technology of the self’ a byproduct of the research is the ethical transformation of the subject. I also believe as a researcher that I have ethical responsibilities to consider not only epistemological but also methodological considerations. By this I mean that I have grown wary of traditional historical techniques that have produced histories that have focussed on how Australia was colonised and settled by whites without due consideration to the ongoing dispossession of the Indigenous peoples of Australia, the treatment of migrants and issues regarding poverty. Under the guidance of my supervisor I have read the works of Foucault over a number of years to assist me in developing a methodology that is ethical while also producing new knowledge on the discourse of Australian citizenship. As a form of ethical practice this has been done to de-stabilise regimes of truth about the nature of Australian citizenship.

1.9 Overview of the Foucaultian methodology The longitudinal research of data spread over 62 years uses a methodology derived from the philosophical work of Foucault. This Foucaultian methodology is used to identify discursive citizenship constructions and practices, their modifications within the discourse and the beliefs and values represented in these discursive constructions. In this dissertation it is understood that the term ‘research methods’ means the types of selection, analysis and writing procedures that are used in the dissertation to provide evidence of learning, knowledge creation and the transmission of this new knowledge. The term ‘Foucaultian methodology’ relates to the use of what Foucault (1974) calls his ‘toolbox’ or research systems. These tools were used to form a cohesive Foucaultian research method which is discussed in detail in this dissertation in Chapter Four: Methodology.

26 This cohesive methodology is necessary because Foucault did not develop a fully worked out, practiced and replicated single methodological position that utilised all aspects of his diverse philosophical interests. Like Foucault, Marx is also a founder of discursivity. However, Foucault criticised the very notion of formulating one type of position such as Marx’s (1990) ‘historical materialism’ or the notion of ‘all history as the history of class struggle’ (Marx, 1985). Accordingly there is no ‘Foucaultian blue-print’ or template for dissertation research, hence the term ‘Foucaultian methodology’ is used to imply that the research practice utilised in this dissertation is based on Foucault’s historical research methods at different stages of his academic career. However, a unifying theme in Foucault’s work is his analysis of power and its effect on the formation of subjectivity. As Foucault (1980) states, ‘(T)he longer I continue, the more it seems to me that the formation of discourses and the genealogy of knowledge need to be analysed, not in terms of types of consciousness, modes of perception and forms of ideology, but in terms of tactics and strategies of power’ (p. 77). Unlike other philosophers and historians who aim their research practice or ‘arrow’ at a stationary target, Foucault’s practice can be seen in terms of an archer aiming at a moving target while firing from a moving platform. This is because Foucault acknowledges that truth, even his own truth is unstable and dynamic. A recent Foucault historiographer, Paras (2006), has called this peculiarity in Foucault’s historiography the ‘pendulum’ of Foucaultian thought. According to Paras (2006) Foucault’s historiography shows pendulum like swings in philosophical enquiries from the 1960s to the 1980s. For instance, according to Paras (2006) Foucault altered his position on subjectivity throughout his career. Firstly he acknowledged the possibility of subjectivity, then killed off subjectivity and then in his last years, ‘…only the notion of strong subjectivity proved warm enough to accommodate an overwhelming passion for life and an indistinguishable belief in the primacy of human liberty’ (p.158). This implies that Foucault used different techniques of thinking depending on the position of the ‘target’ or problem that was being examined. These different forms of thinking employed at stages of his career have been labelled as ‘structural’ whilst at other times his thinking has been labelled as ‘poststructural’.

27 Foucault’s historiography can be seen in terms of a thinker who refused to be categorised by particular techniques, movements or strategies. The best definition of Foucault comes from the title he gave himself at the College of France (1969-1984). He called himself ‘a historian of systems of thought’ (Mills 2003). In Foucault’s Archaeology of Knowledge (2002a:11-12) he states that the creation of a new historical method is confronted by a number of methodological problems which he delineates as the ‘… building up of coherent and homogenous corpora of documents … the establishment of a principle of choice ... the definition of the limit of analysis and the relevant elements … the specification of a method of analysis … the delimitation of groups and sub-groups that articulate the material … the determination of relations that make it possible to characterise a group …’ Having articulated a new historical method with Archaeology of Knowledge published in 1969, Foucault continued to modify this method through the introduction of genealogical studies. These focussed on relations of power and power/knowledge in the creation of subjectivity culminating with the publication of A History of Sexuality: 1 in 1976 and a series of edited texts Power/Knowledge in 1980. This is the basis for the methodology of this research and is detailed in Chapter Four: Methodology.

1.9.1 The Foucaultian nature of power The exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power. Knowledge and power are integrated with one another, and there is no point in dreaming of a time when knowledge will cease to depend on power; this is just a way of reviving humanism in a utopian guise. It is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge, it is impossible for knowledge not to engender power (Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge. p. 52).

As the genealogical method focuses on relations of power it is important to understand the nature of power. According to Thompson (2003) power has a relatively fluid identity and is a property of the interactions between individuals, groups and institutions. This interaction causes power to be open to change with individuals, ‘… as the vehicles of power not its point of application’ (Foucault 1980:98). Foucault (1980) states that, power

28 is not owned but is brought into being through relations of power. Through an analysis of the Foucaultian canon, O’Farrell (1997) states that power is not merely exploitative and negative in a Marxist sense but more importantly is emancipatory, omnipresent and productive. Adding to Foucault’s concept of power Gergen (1999:207) argues that, ‘… power resides not in a structure or a person but in a set of relationships’. These relationships allow individuals, groups and institutions to use power for productive purposes. In a productive way, disciplinary social functionaries such as parents, teachers, police, judges and politicians use their disciplinary functions to create conditions whereby individual subjects can be formed through the enforcement of authorised power. Through disciplinary power, where limits are defined and delimitations are punished conditions are created through specific institutions to authorise individual expression. It is in this way the bringing in to sharper focus of individual subjectivity that power can be seen to be productive. These relations of power, are productive, and are manifested in physical artefacts including newspapers which contain an archive of the public discourse of citizenship contained within the language of texts and in effect represent the residue of the systems of thought on Australian citizenship.

1.9.2 An explanation of Power/Knowledge The term ‘power/knowledge’ and its implications for understanding the nature of society, perceptions of reality and the shaping of subjects has become part of the lexicon of academics interested in discursive studies. It is used extensively within this dissertation. The term ‘power/knowledge’ is one of the many legacies of Foucault’s work. According to Paras (2006) Foucault devised the term power/knowledge in response to the problem in the analysis of the discipline of the history of thought in terms of how ideology was viewed in history. Foucault saw ideology as an extremely limiting notion because it forced historians to view power as, ‘… either to be exercised by imposing itself by violence, or to hide itself, and to get itself accepted by holding the chattiness of ideology’ (Paras 2006:113). To Foucault (2006a) this dilemma of power did not exist as he saw that at every point of the exercise of power, ‘… is at the same time a site of formation: not of ideology, but of knowledge. And on the other hand, every established knowledge permits and assures the exercise of power’ (p. 113).

29 This dissertation analyses how the knowledge (connaissance and savoir) of citizenship is represented within the discourse and how the relations of power are exercised at this site. The etymology of the term power/knowledge is best understood when the two words are analysed from a Foucaultian perspective. Firstly, power is not positive or negative it can only be brought into being through the intervention of people, as it is people who decide how power is to be used. Power is relational. It is in this technique that power is something that is not possessed, but is invoked in different ways by different individuals, groups or institutions. Power is understood within this frame as not simply power over others but also as a force to change an individual, groups or institutions and wider situations. This change can only be achieved through the intervention of knowledge or truth manifested in discursive constructions. In this way power is seen not merely as a tool of repression and Machiavellian coerciveness but also as a liberating and creative force. Further, knowledge in this frame is seen as the corpus of analysed information on a particular topic, issue or body of truths that is understood at a specific time for different purposes by individuals, groups, institutions or governments. In this sense knowledge is a construction controlled by individuals or groups for the benefit of all, for select groups or for a select few which changes over time either through imperceptible deviations or wild undulating swings depending on the social conditions that bring it into being and which affect its utility. Knowledge is created or formed not in isolation but through relations of power. In this relationship knowledge is unstable in that claims to truth are dynamic as they are contested within the discourse due to its capacity to utilise controversy and crises and the interpretation of these events to move it in new directions. Knowledge within the power/knowledge axiom is a political construction brought about through relations of power. These relations of power become in effect a transport system for ‘truth’, a roadway under continual construction within specific discourses. The limits of discourse determine what can be said about any particular piece of knowledge, and in particular who receives knowledge and who has access to knowledge. In this way power-knowledge is more than a symbiotic relationship between two words it is singular, with power in this new term only existing with knowledge and knowledge only existing with power.

30 The term power/knowledge was not a constant in Foucault’s work. Etymologically, ‘power/knowledge’ was used after 1969 and during the writing of ‘The History of Sexuality Volume 1’ published in 1976. It was gradually replaced with the idea of ‘government by the truth’ or ‘governmentality’ particularly after 1980 until his death in 1984. This supplementary idea ‘governmentality’ hinted towards personal activity that could be exercised by individuals upon themselves and was better suited according to Foucault to determine the role of the individual in the formation of their own subjectivity. This move was part of a growing understanding by Foucault of the role of individuality or as Foucault called it ‘subjectivity’ in the progression of an understanding of oneself within particular discourses. The development of personal freedom or the foundation of truth from within exists within the constraints of discourse. Foucault acknowledged that such a truth was limited to those who understood that subjectivity was essentially dealing with the invention of the self in an attempt to free oneself from the effects of discourse. Such notions were part of Foucault’s continual refinement of his life’s work and should be seen as a co-existence of historical philosophies rather than the negation of previous ideas. In this respect these ideas or philosophies become methodological tools for researchers to critique social constructions. Such a view assists in a growing understanding of Foucault’s historiography and its consequent applicability to research questions.

1.10 Focus for the analysis of the period 1946 – 2007. The historical period 1946 – 2007 was chosen for this study because of diverse social, economic, political and cultural changes in Australian society. These changes have generated numerous problematics for researchers. These problematics include responses to globalisation, decolonisation and the changing understanding of relations of power as expressed through capitalism and democracy. From a social perspective these changes have generated a number of questions including: • how complex global and local changes affect citizens • how citizens have complied with, modified or resisted these changes in Australian society

31 • how have these changes been represented to the Australian people and to what extent do these representations of knowledge construct social cohesion. The time period 1946-2007 allows for the study of historical change to show how different discourses combine under particular social conditions to produce new discursive structures. These sites of power/knowledge are complex and contradictory21. Foucault (1998) calls this the, ‘… tactical polyvalence of discourses’ (p. 100). These new discursive frameworks and their representations by their very nature have led to the marginalisation of groups from mainstream society and the denial of the full advantages of Australian citizenship. In particular these marginalising practices are written about as not only what an Australian is but what an Australian is not thus this tradition emphasises discursive practices at the core of a discourse but also at the limits of discourse. Over time disadvantaged groups such as Indigenous communities have been included within new complex discourses through a growing focus on land rights. These changes and developments to citizenship are global in nature and affect Australian society at the social, cultural, economic and political level. The changes and developments flow in both directions: global to local and local to global. In this way it will be argued that the tactical polyvalence of discourse shapes the nature of Australian citizenship. This can be seen in Australia playing its part to a small degree in creating change and developments in the global community. Australian society has affected global changes through its participation in international trade, finance, cultural and educational exchanges, military actions, political manoeuvres and democratic expression. This expression of international relationships demonstrates that national social, economic, political and cultural power is multi-directional and its effects are felt in different ways in different countries.

1.11 Summary of the problem statement Citizenship has grown in importance in Australia and in the globalised world since the mid 1940s. It is from this time that the full effects of globalisation began to impact on the daily lives of citizens. The global movement of people in the form of migration, finance

21 For a complete description of the tactical polyvalence of discourse see Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: 1, pp. 100-102.

32 in the form of foreign investment and information in the form of access to local and foreign media from this time greatly impacted on western societies. The individual’s relationship with the state began to shift as new competition for employment, social, cultural and religious practices took hold in the transformed environment. The changes created tension between traditional practices and imported global practices which provided fertile territory for social, cultural and political expression to take hold. As stated in the introduction through the application of a Foucaultian method the dissertation attempts to answer the problem statement as to whether a genealogy of Australian citizenship and its characteristic form of power/knowledge is manifested discursively in print media texts published on January 26 (Australia Day)22 from 1946 – 2007. By questioning its existence through the application of a Foucaultian analytic I am extending Foucault’s theories to citizenship. In this way citizenship is imagined as a discourse and therefore knowledges of citizenship are a social construction. If this is the case then what was made can be unmade and refashioned to promote greater individual freedom.

1.12 Professional significance of the problem The study’s focus is on the analysis of data collated from the Australia Day and January 27 editions of the SMH and SH from 1946-2007 that relate to Australian citizenship and citizens. This medium was chosen as international discourse research by van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1997a and 1997b) has demonstrated that media texts contain evidence of normative thinking and power/knowledge. The theories and philosophies of Foucault have been utilised in the dissertation to promote systems of thought that help critique current citizenship practices. These current citizenship practices are professionally significant because during the period of study a global trend of increased migration of people whose allegiances to their adopted homeland has been openly questioned through all layers of society has become more apparent. Additionally a trend has been noted of new forms of citizenship emerging in the discourse including a type of citizenship that promotes enlightened self-interest and in so-doing exacerbates social and economic inequalities.

22 Additionally, January 27 is also used where texts of ‘significance’ exist. This factor of significance is explained on pp. 103 – 107 of this thesis.

33 These have been highlighted in media texts particularly on Australia Day and are examples of the changing nature of the discourse. This study has been completed for a number of reasons. A lasting and fair society needs to be questioned in all areas to ensure that relations of power are checked through evidence based studies. In this way the study has intrinsic importance because it potentially affects citizens, institutions and governments through the production of a greater understanding of the workings of power. The genealogy that has resulted in this research helps to explain current citizenship practices and to historicise past changes to power/knowledge. It allows for a questioning of the rationality of current practices. As was noted above van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) has used newspapers as sources of data to investigate racism in the press since the 1980s. Recently the researcher Manning (2004; 2006 and 2007) has used The Sydney Morning Herald and other media sources for his analysis of racism as a social construction. Despite the above examples the study is unusual within the Australian context in that it uses newspapers over an extended period of time as sources of data to view citizenship as a cultural construction. The dissertation also provides a methodological framework to potentially encourage new research into common problems using a Foucaultian analytic. The design of the methodology utilises genealogy and archaeology as complimentary methods to examine the language of the texts that show the limits of discourse. As such it has yielded useful methodological findings to assist future research into the problems of subjectivity through the workings of power. Additionally studies on the analysis of discourse serve as, ‘… a function of promoting interests in a battle of power and desires. Once located it is a field for analysis which analysis is a central portion of our coming to know ourselves. As such, a discourse is an aid to understanding’ (Brown, 2000:31).

1.13 Organisation of the Research The research focuses on the public discourse of citizenship as manifested in newspapers from the time period 1946-2007. It demonstrates how new relations of power/knowledge had developed and accordingly the questions which were then acceptable to ask within this new knowledge. Consequently it also shows the limitations of knowledge. By using the past to provide knowledge about the present, the study allows for a greater

34 understanding of current social practices. This concept will be explored throughout the dissertation but particularly in Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion of the Results as a Genealogy of Australian citizenship. The organisation of this research follows the typical architecture of a dissertation. The first chapter of the dissertation presents the background of the study, specifies the problem of the study, describes its significance, and presents an overview of the methodology used. The second and third chapters present literature reviews on citizenship, its exteriorities and the discourse of citizenship within Australia. Included within this literature is historical studies of Australia that include citizenship, poverty/equality, historical studies of post World War Two Australia, more recent studies of globalisation and poststructuralism in addition to their impact on present knowledge of Australian citizenship. This diverse literature provides a basis for the present study.

Problem statements as the research focus power Literature review to build knowledge

Methodology to collect and analyse data support ti Results of the study

Summary and discussion of results

35 Figure 1.1 The relationship of the chapters as operating fields of the study with the ‘target’ or focus of the research being the ‘problem statement’.

The fourth chapter describes the methods used to conduct the research described in this dissertation. In 4.2 a description of the general methodology used is presented. In 4.3 the research site is explained. In 4.4 the areas for research are defined. In 4.5 the instruments and materials used are described. In 4.6 the procedures followed to conduct the research are explained. In 4.7 data analysis is detailed and in 4.8 a summary statement of the methodology is given to conclude the chapter. The fifth chapter then summarises the results and discusses the findings in relation to their applicability and presents a genealogy of Australian citizenship discourse. It makes recommendations for further study into citizenship discourse and makes suggestions for how citizenship can be refashioned to permit greater freedom of individual expression. The sixth chapter uses the genealogy of citizenship presented in this dissertation to question the rationality of current practices and provides a re-imagining of Australian citizenship and suggestions as to how this could occur.

1.14 Summary of Chapter One This chapter has set out the background, questions, methodology, timeframe, aims and purpose of the research and the structure of the dissertation. Using the historical research methods of Foucault to ground the research I have sought to problematise Australian citizenship as a discourse. By doing so the investigation into citizenship seeks to trace the descent of discourse in order to historicise the changes, transformations and discontinuities of systems of thought. In this way citizenship is imagined as a cultural construction and current practices can be seen as the interplay of contingent factors rather than as a historical inevitability. In the research I recognise my own values, experiences and personal interests such as the study of history and Foucault’s contributions to historical study in general that have influenced the production of this dissertation. The investigation into citizenship and the analysis of the data aims to create a history of the discourse of citizenship by tracing the genealogy of Australian citizenship from its post- World War Two inception through to 2007. The analysis of the language of citizenship

36 within The Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald as reported on ‘Australia Day’ (i.e., 26 January) and January 27 provides the data source for this study. This chapter also explains reasons for the use of a Foucaultian analytic in this dissertation. By using citizenship discourse as a problematic the research adds to discourse theory on the relations of power. Chapter One has set out reasons for the need to investigate and analyse citizenship as a discourse and to further explore the relationship of this dissertation to other research and texts about citizenship in Chapters Two and Three. These chapters provide evidence of the links between this dissertation and current citizenship research. Chapters Two and Three also show how the study adds additional meaning and knowledge to current literature on the discourse of Australian citizenship. Further it provides additional knowledge on the discourses of globalisation, localisation and neo-liberalism and how these exteriorities have conditioned the discourse of citizenship overtime.

37 Chapter Two: A review of the literature of citizenship and citizenship discourse But to make visible the unseen can also mean a change of level, addressing oneself to a layer of material which had hitherto had no pertinence for history and which had not been recognised as having any moral, aesthetic, political or historical value (Foucault, 1980: 50 – 51).

On the whole, therefore, one can speak of the formation of a disciplinary society in this movement that stretches from the enclosed disciplines, a sort of social 'quarantine', to an indefinitely generalizable mechanism of 'panopticism'. Not because the disciplinary modality of power has replaced all the others; but because it has infiltrated the others, sometimes undermining them, but serving as an intermediary between them, linking them together, extending them and above all making it possible to bring the effects of power to the most minute and distant elements. It assures an infinitesimal distribution of the power relations (Foucault, 1991a: 216).

2.1 Overview of the chapter This chapter reviews the literature of citizenship from research conducted internationally and also from within Australia. This chapter includes reviews of foundational texts on citizenship as these are important in understanding the discourse. The authors of these texts are what Foucault (1991b) calls ‘founders of discursivity’ as their texts establish perimeters for the development, production and transmission of discourse. Their texts not only become part of the archive but also help define the limits of discourse. As part of the archive their texts help explain ‘the episteme’ (Foucault 2002a). The episteme is, ‘… something like a world view, a slice of history common to all branches of knowledge, which poses on each one the same norms and postulates, a general stage of reason, a certain structure of thought that the men of a particular period cannot escape – a great body of legislation written once and for all by some anonymous hand’ (p. 211). The review of the literature discusses how this dissertation relates to previous research on the discourse of citizenship and how citizenship research has been investigated in the past. The review provides a theoretical and analytical context in which the exploration of the literature of the discourse of citizenship for this dissertation was conducted. The literature was reviewed through the Foucaultian analytic of genealogy. This is a type of historical research that focuses on the analysis of relations of power in order to establish a questioning of the rationality of current practices. In using genealogy this

38 review traced the descent of citizenship discourse and analysed the characteristic forms of power/knowledge and its conditioning effects on subjectivity as researched within the literature. Included within this literature review are studies of Australian citizenship that theorise the role of citizens in building the nation, issues of poverty/equality, race relations and studies of post-World War Two Australian society which specifically deal with the citizenship and its discursive properties. This chapter also explains the search process in reviewing the literature and then examines the theoretical and discursive studies in the diverse field of citizenship as identified above. By doing so the literature reviewed in this chapter acknowledges its indebtedness to past research and shows clear linkages between what is known about the discourse of citizenship and what has been discovered in this research. The studies that complete the review deal with factors exterior to discourse. These factors are what Foucault (1971a) calls the ‘exteriority’ of discourse. This form of exteriority relates to an investigation into the literature on the factors which potentially condition it. In The Order of Discourse (1971a) Foucault explains that exteriority is established by, ‘… starting from the discourse itself, from its appearance and regularity, to go toward its external conditions of possibility, toward that which gives rise to the chance series of these events and fixes its boundaries’ (p.55). In the review of citizenship discourse these exteriorities are identified as cultural responses to globalisation, localisation, democracy, capitalism and neo-liberalism and are explored in the Chapter Three.

2.2 Search of the current research literature The search process for reviewing the literature on citizenship discourse involved using the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) library at the Ku-ring-gai and Broadway campuses. I found this library to have a representative sample of known citizenship texts and studies. Internet search engines and book retailers in the Sydney suburbs of Broadway, Glebe and Annandale were also utilised to broaden the search for relevant literature. Using this technique of utilising library resources, the internet and commercial

39 stockists, the review of the literature was substantial for works that fall under the broad spectrum and multi-disciplinary nature of citizenship studies as outlined in 2.1 above. In the search process I focused on building a literature review that dealt with the broad nature of citizenship discourse. I developed the literature review in this way to paint a detailed picture of how relations of power have been used in Australian society to structure discourses and also how forces of resistance shape discourses. As stated in Chapter One by structuring discourses cultural, economic and political groups attempt to remain in positions of influence through the control of knowledge and the production of truth. To determine the available literature on Australian Citizenship I searched through the UTS library portal by entering the keywords ‘Citizenship Australia’ under the topic ‘Subject’. This brought up 29 texts including books, articles, papers and parliamentary records. Another four texts were brought up using the search ‘Citizenship Australia History’. A further search using the term, ‘Citizenship Australia Congresses’ brought forth three texts. This primary search technique brought up 36 texts in total. A secondary search under the topic ‘Words’ was undertaken. Using the keywords ‘Citizenship Australia’ another 122 texts were listed. These 122 texts included the 36 texts from the primary search. I then sifted through the remaining 86 texts to determine whether any links existed to my research. A large proportion of these texts was already either in my personal collection or had been previously reviewed in the initial stages of the research. A third search based on the keywords of ‘citizenship discourse’ brought forth 23 texts two of which were partially based on Australian research. Based on these search methods, my main focus for the literature review became the texts from the primary search plus texts within my personal collection and other texts with high correlations from the secondary and tertiary search. This correlation related to any text that dealt with the disciplining effects of globalisation, capitalism, democracy and neo-liberalism on subjectivity. An additional search for relevant literature occurred where texts were quoted in the Australia Day editions from The Sydney Morning Herald from 1946 – 2007 which had not previously been uncovered by the above search process. Having read widely on the topic of citizenship, citizens and subjectivity I created a database of authors, text titles, date of publication, the site of the publication and the

40 publisher and suitable quotes and used Endnote 5 to capture information for the literature review. The review of this literature on Australian citizenship is presented below.

2.3 Growth in Citizenship Research Citizenship research is a growing area of academic interest. The Australian researchers Walter and MacLeod (2002) see citizenship developing momentum as a site for research and publication from the late 1980s because of political, economic and social reasons. According to Walter and MacLeod (2002) these reasons are all related to globalisation. They explain them as: 1. popular disillusionment with impotent political solutions to local problems as it became more apparent that globalisation diminished the powers of national governments to solve problems at the local level. 2. people were told that every problem in society had an economic solution. Reinforcing this neo-liberal view throughout western countries that the economy was paramount, the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher quoted Hayek (1944) and famously stated that ‘society does not exist, only the economy’. Citizens became disillusioned with this view of society. It led to popular calls for the recognition of community and social relations above economic considerations. 3. the global movement of people created greater ethnic mixes throughout western nations as immigrants sought the benefits and protection of democracy and capitalism for themselves and their families. In this climate theorists and government seek a unifying language to improve social ties and attempt to revive commitments to political ideology. In this social space citizenship has become a vehicle for government to promote shared values in a constantly changing society. Walter and MacLeod’s (2002) observation of the importance of globalisation to the rise in interest in citizenship is significant. Their observations help in part to explain how and why controversies and crises regarding citizenship are not unique to Australia and demonstrate that exterior factors condition the discourse. This exteriority is examined in Chapter Three below.

41 2.3.1 The development of citizenship as a site for research In this section of the literature review the research of Marshall (1949) and Habermas (1989) are discussed. Foucault’s connection to citizenship studies concludes this section. According to Turner (1994), Marshall’s (1949) Citizenship and Social Class is a foundational text of citizenship theory. Isin and Wood (1999) assert that Foucault might call such a text as a, ‘… founding document of modern citizenship studies’ (p.25) due to its ongoing impact on the discourse. Marshall’s analysis was written during the development of Cold War tensions and it implicitly attempts to explain the significance of citizenship and its role in promoting equality in western society and culture. Marshall’s research and theories on citizenship are virtually standard throughout the literature. In this sense Marshall can be seen as ‘a founder of discursivity’23. In Marshall’s analysis there are three dimensions to citizenship; civil, political and social. These three dimensions developed according to Marshall (1949) progressively in England over two hundred years from the 1700s. They were brought about initially by capitalist processes which saw ownership of property as a priority for participation in democratic processes and growing citizenship rights. In Marshall’s research civil rights allowed citizens protection under the law. Political rights allowed citizens to vote and demonstrate through word and deed against perceived injustice without fear of retaliation. Social citizenship is identified by Marshall (1949) with the state provision of welfare. In this way the state became increasingly responsible for the welfare needs of citizens. According to Marshall (1949) this process had political implications of tying groups to particular political parties through a cradle to the grave mentality through the provision of state welfare during all stages of a citizen’s life. In essence Marshall argues that through the flow-on effect of these three stages, citizenship is the best possible option for societies to provide equality of opportunity. Although there has been much criticism of Marshall’s theory including Giddens (1999) who criticised the evolutionary aspects of the theory, Marshall’s work remains ‘a founding document’ that underpins citizenship discourse. Marshall’s research provides a broad knowledge on the development of citizenship rights and responsibilities. In

23 For a discussion on this phenomenon see Michel Foucault’s What is an Author? in ‘The Foucault Reader’ edited by Paul Rabinow pp. 101 – 120. Also see Rabinow’s explanation of the author function in ‘The Foucault Reader’ pp. 23 – 27.

42 summary Marshall (1949) views citizenship as creating social cohesion whereas class structures create social divisions. Recent texts such as Giddens (1999), Isin and Wood (1999) and Root (2007) note emerging changes to the discourse and question Marshall’s underlying evolutionary approach to citizenship. This dissertation adds to the view that to be better understood citizenship needs to be analysed discursively to bring forth the interplay of contingencies rather than a belief in social evolution. As an addition to Marshall’s theories, Habermas (1989) provides an alternative perspective on citizenship and the rights of citizens. He sees democratic processes developing due to a growing access to ‘healthy public spheres’. These healthy public spheres saw political institutions allow open and rational debates between citizens in order to form public opinion and in so doing create greater rights for citizens. According to Edgar (2006), Habermas believed that, ‘(C)itizenship is about one’s public relationships with others in a particular society’ (p.83). Habermas (1989) categorised five groups of rights that all citizens must have so that society functions peacefully. Firstly ‘traditional liberties’ allow freedoms for citizens to do what they like as long as they do not impinge on the freedoms of others. Secondly, citizenship affords ‘membership of a legal community’ so that rights are protected by law. Thirdly, that as part of the legal community each citizen has ‘access to legal resources and procedural fairness’ in cases where citizenship rights are violated. Fourthly, all citizens have ‘the right to enter into political debates, discussions and ultimately chose who governs them through the democratic process’. Lastly, Habermas (1989) echoes the work of Marshall when he states that ‘traditional welfare rights are needed to provide a safety net for society’ in the form of pensions, access to education and arbitration systems to negotiate minimum wages and conditions. Habermas’ theory of the development of citizenship rights is advanced by Cotton and Ravenhill (2001) who state that, ‘(C)ivil and political rights include rights of freedom of expression and rights of immunity, which include the right to life, rights to personal freedoms, and the right to impartial justice, as well as rights of political participation. Economic, social, and cultural rights, on the other hand, include the right to an adequate standard of living (consisting of access to food, clothing, housing, medical care, and

43 social services), the right to work, the right to free choice of employment, and the right to equal pay for equal work’ (p. 278). In this model these rights of citizenship are defined and expected by citizens through the democratic process. I argue in the review that Marshall’s three dimensions and Habermas five rights of citizenship although fundamentally sound do not fully explain the changes and experiences that are occurring to citizenship when it is understood as a discourse. For instance the data presented in this dissertation shows that the discourse while promoting citizenship rights and producing effective citizens also produces prejudice and racism. Further that Marshall’s (1949) ‘social citizenship’ is being eroded by an emerging citizenship practice I have labelled as ‘enterprise citizenship’. A fundamental shift in the discourse not explained by the theories of Marshall (1949) and Habermas (1989) is the emergence of enterprise citizenship. This form of thinking and acting encourages citizens to act in their self-interest and to look less to the state for assistance. This shows the discourse moving from understandings of responsibility of the state to the citizen to responsibility of the citizen to the state. That is, ‘good citizens are prosperous citizens’ as they do not require the assistance of the state to lead productive lives. Through an analysis of the growing consumption of an endless array of consumer products researchers including Hamilton (2004) and Root (2007) have identified this emerging experience of citizenship as a form of ‘self-interest’. Although Marshall’s text provides a broad knowledge on the development of citizenship rights and responsibilities more recent texts such as Giddens (1999), Isin and Wood (1999) and Root (2007) note emerging changes to the discourse and question Marshall’s underlying evolutionary approach to citizenship. This dissertation adds to the view that to be better understood citizenship needs to be analysed discursively to bring forth the interplay of contingencies rather than a belief in social evolution. Foucault’s connection to citizenship discourse is through his studies of governmentality. This can be understood as how individual subjects are governed and govern themselves (O’Farrell 2005). Citizenship in its most elemental form is the understanding that participation in civil society means that a citizen agrees to be governed and to govern themselves.

44 The studies of governmentality were the basis for a series of lectures by Foucault at the College de France from 1978 - 1979. As O’Farrell (2005) states governmentality relates to the, ‘… techniques and procedures which are designed to govern the conduct of both individuals and populations at every level not just the administrative or political level’ (p. 138). Foucault’s lectures focused on two forms of government power the first being the centralisation of political power in bureaucracy and administration. He claimed that centralised power encouraged compliance through bureaucratic and administrative power to create a cohesive population but consequently this also produced individualising power through forces of resistance. This understanding of the totalising and individualising power of centralised government allows according to Oksala (2007), ‘… the development of power technologies oriented towards individuals in an attempt to govern their conduct in a continuous and permanent way. The aim is to constantly ensure, sustain and improve the lives of each and every person’ (p. 83). In this understanding the improvement in the lives of each and every person comes through technologies of power as a set of relations. According to Foucault (2007) improvement in the lives of all citizens could only occur where governmentality had permeated24 all aspects of a person’s conduct.

2.4 The discourse of Australian citizenship The study of Australian citizenship as a discourse is an area of research that continues to grow. The following review of the literature shows the broad sweep of interests associated with Australian citizenship studies and research. These include ‘rights and responsibilities’, ‘defining citizenship and its purposes’, ‘the roles of citizens’, ‘the history of Australian citizenship’, ‘egalitarianism’, ‘normative and legal understandings of citizenship’, ‘poststructuralism and citizenship’, ‘Indigenous Australians’, ‘citizenship as a site for discrimination’, ‘cultural minority groups’, ‘genocide’, ‘education’, ‘genetics’, ‘education’s role in constructing types of citizens’, ‘sexuality’, and ‘the role of feminism’.

24 This permeation is discussed below as the alignment of political, capital and democratic discourses in Chapter 3.4 (pp. 83-89).

45 The dominant view from the literature on Australian citizenship is exemplified in the work of Galligan and Roberts (2004) who reject notions that citizenship is an imagined construct or a site for relations of power. This view is also evidenced in Hirst (2002) which was distributed by the Commonwealth Government to every high school in Australia in 2002. However, Walter and MacLeod (2002) view citizenship as a political bargain between the individual and the state with imagined connections including a common history, language, culture, race and religion. This view is amplified by Dutton’s (2002) text One of Us? A century of Australian citizenship. Dutton (1999) significantly also states, ‘(C)itizenship in Australia has never been clearly defined by reference to a set of rights and corresponding obligations’ (p. 87). Irving (2006) states that many who write about citizenship ignore that citizenship is defined by law. Clearly echoing Dutton’s (1999) concerns she also states that the, ‘… term “citizen” is very frequently used loosely … to make certain normative claims about the character of, opportunities for, participation in a political community … (which results in) … the creation of an abstract model of citizenship’ (p. 162). Further Irving (2006) states that the, ‘… failure of our language in articulating the difference between legal and normative citizenship is part of the problem’ (p. 162). According to Davidson (2000) citizenship is the power to make laws under which people live and this only exists where all individuals have equal access to decision- making power. Davidson (1997; 2000) also makes the claim that Australian governments have committed genocide against Aboriginal Australians. The unequal relations of power between Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and whites in Australia are explored by Petersen and Sanders (1998) in their study Australian Citizenship and Indigenous Australians. They found that equal rights, Indigenous rights, compensation and restoration do not fit together in the context of contemporary Australian political life, with its dominant themes of mateship, the 'fair go' and the emphasis on neo-liberalism. An analysis of Australian citizenship from a poststructuralist position is found in Poststructuralism, Citizenship and Social Policy by the Australian researchers Petersen et al (1999). Poststructuralism is a technique or philosophy centred on the formation of the subject through discourse and attempts to demonstrate the limitations of knowledge and

46 truth through a deconstruction of language. In Petersen’s studies they found through their analysis that citizenship could be used as an alternative language of resistance in the defence of ‘the social’ against practices of what they call ‘free market economics’ which I identify as neo-liberalism. They argue that citizenship education could be imagined as an engagement with difference to assist in the articulation of Indigenous reconciliation and cultural pluralism. However, Petersen et al (1999) does acknowledge that education is not the only dimension in the discursive struggle over citizenship. Petersen et al (1999) see genetics as an important site to contest the meaning of citizenship and stated that bio- technology generally had a constitutive significance in subjectivity. In this way he saw genetics as an additional way that citizens view understandings of health and illness. This literature finds that in relation to Australian citizenship there is a limit to knowledge and that truth is fragmentary, splintered and heterogeneous. Current theorists of Australian society and citizenship experiences such as Argy (2003), Peel (2003), Pusey (2003) and Saunders (2005) interrogate the capacity of citizens to tolerate perceived or real differences in rights between citizens and the changing nature of the ‘fair go’ and ‘egalitarianism’ within Australia as part of a globalised market driven economy. This thesis links with their research in that the analysis of the data presented in Chapter Five has evidence of the erosion of understandings of egalitarianism and the promotion of a type of citizen constituted through self-interest. Marginson (1997a) identified the emergence of Australian citizen types shaped through the educational process. Marginson’s text analyses the major issues in educational policy through an understanding of Foucaultian networks of power in the construction of normative thinking and behaviour. In Marginson’s (1997a) view, ‘(E)ducation shapes people as citizens. There are also other institutions that do this - for example the family, work, the churches, and consumption - but none of these sites are as open to government intervention and social change’ (p.5). These educational processes were required for Australia to take its place as a global citizen. Marginson identifies these citizen types as: a) the modernised and modernising citizen of the postwar boom b) the anti-citizen or ultra-individual of market liberalism

47 c) the economic citizen of micro-economic reform and global economic competitiveness d) the multi-citizen, the more complex identity of the 1990's. I argue in the review that due to the discourse and its exteriorities an additional citizen experience is emerging in the discourse that of the enterprise citizen aligned to the workings of the globalised world. This citizen experience, ‘enterprise citizenship’ is discussed further in Chapters Five and Six. In Marginson’s research government in education affects the formation of people as ‘self-managing citizens’, embedded in social relations which tend to vary over time. This formation of the citizen through educational practices can be analysed from a Foucaultian analytic that sees the workings of power as institutionalised. Forms of domination have infiltrated institutions to affect change at the level of citizenry. Sullivan (2000) identifies Australian citizenship as a site that discriminates against sexual minorities. She states that despite extensive legislative changes from the late 1960s, ‘… Australian law and public policy continues to reinforce heteronormativity and to treat homosexuals and same-sex relationships in a discriminatory fashion’ (p. 155). Sexuality that challenges normative thought is an important site for resistance. Isin and Wood (1999) state that ‘… (D)isruptions of these norms … challenge the ability of authorities to exercise power and regulate markets. The state demonstrates the importance of sexual norms through its legal restrictions on such activities, and through the selective allocations of social rights based on gender and/or sexual orientation’ (p. 89). According to Cox (2000) the promotion of feminism has played a major role in developing equality of opportunity for women, including, ‘… equal pay, childcare, and (recognition and prosecution of) domestic violence’ (p. 58). However, ‘… citizenship for women seems currently possible only when women can translate their causes into neo- liberal, masculinist terms’ (p. 57). Such a broad range of interests and perspectives in the literature suggests that citizenship is a multi-dimensional site for knowledge production and cultural construction.

48 2.4.1 Australian egalitarianism and its relationship with Indigenous society The literature that specifically deals with the discourse of Australian citizenship has previously identified the emergence of particular citizenship experiences and also develops the concept of egalitarianism as a trait that is disappearing from the discourse due to the promotion of neo-liberal activities. Foucault (2002a) states in The Archaeology of Knowledge that discourses are to be treated ‘… as practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak' (p. 54). This is so in the discourse of Australian citizenship as demonstrated in the area of equality and fairness which is colloquially understood as ‘a fair go’. In Australian citizenship discourse, equality and fairness are common themes particularly with the use of the words or statements to do with ‘a fair go’ and ‘egalitarianism’. The use of these words and statements come to prominence25 in the discourse from the late 1980s. Specifically the enonce ‘egalitarian’ first appears in the archive in 1987. This egalitarianism is about giving a ‘fair go’ to all. According to Gittins (2004a; 2004b; 2004c) egalitarianism exists only for some due to the unequal spread of wealth in Australia. Australia is among the worst of the developed nations in which to be poor particularly for Indigenous communities (Tiffen and Gittins 2004). For example the expected lifespan of an Aboriginal Australian born now is the same as that of other Australians born a century ago when few had running water, when sewage ran free, when antibiotics were unknown, when babies often died (Tiffen and Gittins 2004). The interrogation of the meaning of equality continues as a major area of media interest whether explicitly stated or not. The reporting of the Redfern Riot in January of 2004 is a case in point. Redfern is an inner-city suburb of Sydney with a large Aboriginal housing estate known as ‘The Block’. The extract below is an example of how local practices are comparable to inequality usually associated with developing nations. As the global project continues the disparities between the marginalised and enabled begin to emerge from the fog of the current. The journalist Mike Carlton (2004) reported that, (T)he only surprising thing about last Sunday's riot at Redfern is that there haven't been

25 See Chapter Five, Figure 6.4, p. 157.

49 more of them. Here you have the pathetic flotsam and jetsam of Australian life, dwelling in a Third World stew that should be a national scandal, crushed by poverty, without jobs and without hope, shackled to social welfare and lashed by the scourges of alcohol, heroin, prostitution, crime illiteracy, innumeracy and ignorance. All within sight of the gleaming towers of the nation's richest city and one of the most prosperous in the world. These facts are indisputable. It is a miracle that Redfern doesn't riot every Sunday (p. 26). There is little agreement in the literature on the meaning of equality and what makes for an egalitarian society. In the literature these ideas hold many layers and levels of significance. This is reflected in differing, divergent and divisive interpretations of relative poverty in Australia (Saunders 2006). It is not surprising that egalitarianism holds multiple meanings for equality and what is meant by the enonce ‘Australia’s egalitarian society’. According to Thompson (2001b), egalitarianism in Australia, ‘… mostly revolved around the ideas of sameness ... we believed that all Australians were entitled to a share in the goodies of our society, and that ideally they were entitled to the same share’ (p 71). Through a complex production of disagreement or muddying of the waters on specific language use, dominant groups have the authorisation to complicate the discourse and appropriate words or statements that suit their ideological persuasion. The philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1972a) has noted that alternative language cannot be invented as it is only through, ‘… subverting traditional material’ (p. 80) that new meanings can be grafted onto old meanings. This is one way discursive statements related to egalitarianism and poverty have moved closer to understandings more aligned with the culture of the United States of America then Australia (Briggs 2003). The idea of sameness is moving to the notion of individual choice and the role of human agency in the construction of identity. Thus the traditional Australian meaning of sameness has been subverted to assist in aligning citizen values to current global discourses. As Thompson (2001) has stated this preference for sameness overwhelmingly affected the way Australians saw themselves and the way citizenship was conducted. In this dissertation I argue that since the 1970s in Australia understandings of egalitarianism have attempted to move away from sameness. This in turn has shifted relations of power

50 and resulted in less care for disadvantaged workers who have low skills and education and subsequently little individual bargaining power (Argy 2003). The moving away from ‘sameness’ in the discursive practice of egalitarianism has gone in a number of directions. One of these directions or perspectives is the growing acceptance of inequality which is more in line with understandings of American egalitarianism with its own historical traditions. This is a belief that any American can work their way to the top and be a success (Briggs 2003). This was manifested in former president Bill Clinton’s rise to become the US president in 1992. He was raised as a relatively poor child in Arkansas which is one of America’s most economically disadvantaged states. To Americans this was proof positive that their egalitarianism worked (Briggs 2003). Such views are echoed by Australia’s past prime ministers such as Paul Keating (1991-1996) who ‘rose to the top’ from a working class family in relative socio-economic disadvantage. This point is played out in discursive texts26 that suggest that through hard work and persistence everyone can be a success. In this discursive limit associated with neo-liberalism people who are poor and disadvantaged27 are responsible for their conditions and should not be pitied. Put simply this ideology promotes the view that poverty occurs ‘by choice not by chance’. The shifting understanding of egalitarianism is an example of the dynamic nature of the discourse. It is shaped by internal and external factors that enables many members of the community but also continues and exacerbates the marginalisation of the Indigenous, while also polarising social concerns about migrants particularly Muslims. The unequal relations of power between dominant groups, the Indigenous, the poor and migrants have shifted due to global issues complementing, sometimes dominating and always influencing local issues. Although Australia may seem to mirror and reflect what is occurring globally in Western countries, in this case the growing acceptance of inequality is in fact producing, transforming, and reproducing discourses of citizenship

26 See Chapter 5 from 1977 onwards p.150

27 See Chapter Five, Figure 6.6, ‘The Sydney Morning Herald 1996 - 2006’, p.174.

51 due to the effects of localisation28. This localisation can be seen in terms of Australia’s unique position in that a basic premise of the dominant group guiding Australian values is ‘egalitarianism’, or ‘a fair go’ and ‘equality for all’. According to Argy (2003) this ‘internal contradiction’ of Australian egalitarianism promoted the exclusion of non-white and Indigenous Australians as well as the discrimination against women. This internal contradiction of the discourse is most evident from 1995 and 1997 onwards as identified in this dissertation29.

2.4.2 Citizenship and Media Constructions The limit of the knowledge and truth of citizenship is expressed in texts from the Australia Day editions of The Sydney Morning Herald from 1946-2007. This study identified discursive limits of citizenship that show that the media rarely leads the discussion of citizenship or stretches, ‘… the edges of our national conversation’ (Manning 2007:8). In general the media, ‘… promotes the status quo, the position editors think most of their audiences will agree with’ (Manning 2007:8). However, as the Australian political and media academic Ward (1998) argues, ‘… Australia’s democratic political life would be almost inconceivable without the news and interpretation provided by the media’ (p. 363). It is this interpretation that creates an imagined community based on the authority of experts and leaders, the authorised voice, to shape attitudes and values that regulate thought and practice. In effect this imagined community is part of the biopolitics of community life. The idea of the construction and reproduction of knowledge through the media and the media’s role in the imagined community are significant to this study. As discussed in Chapter One the imagined community is made-up of citizens who do not interact with each other on a face-to-face basis but nevertheless still identify as a community (Thwaites 2002). The use of newspaper texts as data has been utilised by the Dutch researcher van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997; 1998 and 2004) in numerous studies over two decades to show examples of the workings of ‘micro-power’. For instance van

28 Localisation is the cultural positioning of globalisation at the local level. This is understood as the transmission of globalising forces at the national, community and also the individual level that shapes subjectivity. See Chapter Three, pp. 79-83, for a review of the literature on localisation.

29 See Chapter Five, particularly 1995 and from 1997 – 2007.

52 Dijk (1988) found that the mass media plays a significant role in the reproduction of racism through the imagined community. This reproduction of racism was found extensively throughout the study. However, Hage (2006) cautions against an oversimplification of racist constructions. He states that, ‘… there is a difference between racism as a negative portrayal of people and racism as a power to do negative things. While everybody can have racist beliefs, not everybody has the power to act on their beliefs. This is where white racism derives its historical importance. White people, historically speaking, have been in a position of power so that they have been able to act on their racism more so than others. If white racism has had the power to discriminate and shape society more than others, this does not mean that non-white racism has had no effect at all. Indeed the victims of racism does not make one necessarily good. Just because one is a victim of racism does not make one virtuous’ (p.13). Building on previous studies the Australian researchers Goot and Rowse (2007) completed a study of attitudes about Indigenous Australians based on an analysis of opinion polling. Their text Divided Nation: Indigenous Affairs and the Imagined Public (2007) explains the construction of knowledge about Indigenous groups and individuals within an imagined community. It also shows these constructions add to racist beliefs. They found that the concept of ‘public opinion’ is a construction used for political purposes that further embed racist beliefs and attitudes. This construction was determined by the framing and definition of issues framed by specific language use that had consequently predetermined relations of power. They based their conclusion on a history of public opinion polls from 1947-2006 that dealt with attitudes regarding Indigenous Australians. Importantly they found that there was no evidence that ‘middle Australia’ had unitary thinking and that, ‘…Australians are divided in their own minds when they find that more than one framing of a complex matter makes sense to them’ (p.171). Thus public opinion is an artefact of opinion polls. The French theorist Bourdieu (1993) also sees public opinion as a creation of a number of factors including media and institutions. In this context public opinion becomes a fertile field for political manoeuvring. This identification as a community of citizens is transmitted through media constructions. According to Thwaites (2002), ‘… the public does not have access to the daily decision-making which goes on in government. Through the mediation of the media,

53 however, the public is provided with stories on government and parliamentary activity. Audience members can pick up knowledge of political events and decisions from newspapers and television programmes. They can construct ideas about the influence and effects of party politics and governmental attitudes about society and the way it operates. Indeed it is mainly through the media that people become “politically” informed: capable of forming opinions about political attitudes and courses of action which become part of their everyday lives. Through mediation, individual audience members become part of the social domain, capable of reproducing knowledge about political programmes and their effects in society’ (p.145). Thwaites does not explain how structures are put in place to regulate subjectivity. I argue in the review that these structures as interiorities of relations of power30 and the exteriorities of globalisation, localisation, democracy, capitalism, and neo-liberalism are pivotal to understandings of citizenship discourse and its transmission through the media.

2.4.3 Discontinuity and individual citizenship: David Hicks as a media construction As stated above the discourse of citizenship not only mirrors but also leads or discursively constitutes the imaginary community of citizenship and nationhood. It disciplines and regulates the actions of citizens. In this way the title ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ although having legal definitions are in fact ‘honorific’ or provisional. They are words whose meanings change at the limits of discourse by the interpretation of events or controversies through enunciative modalities. In the discourse of citizenship these events and controversies can be real or imagined. The way in which they are understood creates new knowledge on the meaning of citizenship. Traditional understandings give way to new knowledge and truths. These truths rupture previously stable positions and are therefore discontinuous to previous knowledge. Through discontinuity and rupture previously understood rights can be removed or strengthened through the political, social and legal processes. Foucault (2002a) used the term ‘discontinuity’ to explain the ‘breaks in thinking’ that he traced through his historical investigations. A case in point in Australian discourse is the discursive portrayal of the Australian citizen, David Hicks and his own non –

30 See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, pp.98-102

54 discursive practices. He was detained without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from late 2001 to 2007 before being released from U.S. custody to Australian authorities in December 2007. He was released in early 2008 with a control order in place which was lifted in November 2008. Hicks was detained without trial because the United States Government had deemed him an ‘enemy combatant’ and a terrorist threat after his arrest in Kabul the capital of Afghanistan by American military in 2001. He allegedly received training by the Taliban in Afghanistan and according to the U.S. authorities was ‘in personal contact’ with Osama bin Laden. By associating Hicks with bin Laden, authorised voices cast Hicks as a terrorist of global proportions. His decision to train with Islamists for a war against the West before the events of September 11, 2001 and his support of the Taliban who had harboured bin Laden in Afghanistan created the conditions for an outcry in Australia against Hicks. His treatment as an Australian citizen is discontinuous with previous systems of thought where citizenship is normatively understood to bring legal entitlement. As Irving (2006) states, ‘… to speak of citizenship rights suggests that there is a natural or automatic relationship between the status of citizen and the enjoyment of rights. But this is not demonstrable’ (p. 162). This is clearly borne out in the Hicks’ case31. Irving (2006) also states that, ‘(T)he failure of our language in articulating the difference between the legal and normative citizenship is part of the problem’ (p. 162). The Hicks case is a strong reminder that in contemporary society, the collective imaginings of social relationships is chiefly constructed by media. It is through media that most citizens gain or maintain knowledge of society, groups or individuals. Media does not merely mirror society. It enables society and individuals through the transmission of prohibitions and permissions. Discursive construction is active and overt in newspapers through the creation of texts that investigate report and narrate on local, national and international events, issues and controversies. The Hicks case is an example whereby an Australian citizen through the power of discursive constructions was allowed

31 The Hick’s case is discontinuous because as an Australian citizen the normative force of citizenship should have meant that his sympathies lay with Australian sentiment that Islamic fundamentalism was ‘un-Australian’. Hick’s case suggested that Islamic fundamentalism was a threat to the values, ideals and beliefs of Australian citizenship. Thus in this system of thought ‘citizenship’ would need to be strengthened to combat any future social, religious, political or ideological struggles.

55 to be denied his full rights of citizenship. Conversely it was also through discursive construction that he was freed when authorised voices began to alter their positions based on the changing collective imaginings within the discourse32. This occurred through the power of discursive constructions that created a collective imagination, in effect a consensus about Hicks that adapted to the workings of the trialectic. The transmission of understandings in the media about the rights and responsibilities of citizens in the light of the David Hicks case (2001-2008) is a pertinent example to practical understandings of the implications of power/knowledge. Although his case appears to be the exception rather than the rule Hicks’ case of incarceration without trial for six years shows that the title ‘citizen’ is honorific and is subject to the political and ideological whims of the government of the day and the acquiescence33 of a compliant citizenry. The former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983) states that the rule of law is the foundation of Australia’s democratic principles as much as the right to vote and that, ‘(I)f our Government is prepared to allow any one of its citizens to be sacrificed on the alter of expediency, if our Government demonstrates that it is not really concerned with justice, for a fair process, for one person, then none of us knows whether circumstances might arise in which the same lack of care, lack of concern, will be exhibited in relation to ourselves’ (Fraser 2007). Clearly one does not need to take a discursive stance or use Foucaultian thinking to reject the treatment of Hicks as a social injustice34 but by doing so a researcher has an opportunity to interrogate the theoretical and practical meanings of citizenship discourse as presented in the print media.

32 This is another example from the discourse of its polyvalence that is the ability of the discourse to be a multiplicity of discursive elements to also include contrary objectives. See Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: 1, p.100. 33 See Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, pp.135-169 for a detailed discussion on how society produces subjects with docile minds and bodies. 34 The case of the journalist Wilfred Burchett (1911 - 1983) born in Melbourne but who was denied an Australian passport from the late 1940s to the 1960s due to his communist sympathies is another example of this type of injustice. His three children born overseas were also denied registration of Australian nationality despite provisions of the Citizenship Act which allows such registrations where a child has a parent who is an Australian citizen (Irving 2006).

56 2.5 Reasons for the utilisation of the Foucaultian method Foucault’s legacy to social and philosophical enquiry is significant (Deleuze 2006). His research provides alternative interpretations on the workings of power and the formation of the ‘individual’ as a subject of discourse. Foucault’s historical studies allow individuals to view current practices not as historical inevitabilities but as the result of cultural constructions. In this way Foucault’s research suggests that what has been made can be unmade. Significantly Foucault is also according to Rabinow (1991) ‘a founder of discursivity’. Prior to Foucault’s analyses, concepts of power have generally been theorised in three main ways. Power was seen as a coercive force to allow citizens to achieve their desires. This is evident in the work of Machiavelli who theorised during the 16th century on the nature of power. He explained in The Prince how individuals could utilise it for their own ends. He states, ‘I also believe that the one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not. It can be observed that men use various methods in pursuing their own personal objectives, that is glory and riches’ (1999: 80). Liberal theorists such as Hobbes (1608) theorised power as the administration of justice to overcome, ‘(T)he business of the world...(which consists of) almost … nothing else but a perpetual contention for honour, riches and authority...(T)hese are indeed great difficulties, but not impossibilities; for by education, and discipline, they may be, and are sometimes reconciled’. In this theory if ‘honour, riches and authority’ were not reconciled ‘by education and discipline’ than forms of justice could be applied by the state. Power to Hobbesian theorists was juridical. That is it was a form of justice applied by the state to ensure that individuals complied with the laws and requirements of the state. The ultimate penalty for transgressors was death imposed by the judiciary guided by the laws of the emerging state system. With the publication of The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Marx and Engels and subsequent works by Marx including Das Capital: Volume 1 (1867), power was envisioned as domination by one class over another. Communism’s role particularly in the Soviet Union was to break what Marx saw as this historical nexus. These ideas held water until the communist experiment became discredited after the 1956 Soviet invasion

57 of Hungary. This invasion demonstrated to the West and the Soviet bloc that the Soviet Union and its communist allies were not in an equal and sustainable relationship (Briggs 2005). During the post-World War two period communism’s theoretical basis in Marxism could only be maintained through military intervention. Having earlier been influenced by Marxism but disillusioned by the events of 1956 Foucault re-published a revised edition of Madness and Civilisation in 1961 which was first published in 1954 (Gutting 2001). In this text he began to theorise power and historical writing in a way that provided an alternative to Marxist thought. He imagined power as being dispersed throughout society and not held by one class or state body but as a relationship of agreed understanding, which by 1976 with the publication of ‘The History of Sexuality:1’ he called ‘power-knowledge’. Power was understood through ‘relations of power’ expressed through language, where discursive formations showed the limits of discourse. In this theory power was connected to the construction of knowledge and knowledge could only be understood through relations of power. For Foucault, power was inextricably linked to social constructions of truth. To uncover the history of ideas and knowledge Foucault devised and employed a method called ‘archaeology’ which he described in ‘The Archaeology of Knowledge’ in 1969. In 1975 he published Discipline and Punish his first major work of ‘genealogy’ that traced the descent of discourse. This was followed by The History of Sexuality: 1 in 1976 which laid out the connections between discourse, power and knowledge. Foucault’s archaeology and genealogy have been chosen as the basis for the research methods used in the dissertation for a number of reasons. In particular they have the capability to question the production of truth and are based on the historical analysis of primary sources for the construction of knowledge and the effects of power. Additionally, a thorough understanding of Foucault’s historiography is essential in contemporary historical research due to his many historical investigations that exposed prisons, madness and sexuality as discourses. These show knowledge as cultural constructions and help to explain current practices not as the result of inevitabilities but as a result of the interplay of contingent factors. It is for this reason that Foucault called his analytic technique as ‘a history of the present’. These types of historical investigations are significant because their, ‘… aim (unlike conventional history) is not simply to

58 understand the past, but in addition to undergo an experience that challenges the self- evidence of our own modes of thought’ (Oksala 2007:35). With Foucault’s death in 1984 there was a subsequent re-focussing on his life’s work by academics particularly in the US and Australia. This interest helped to create a growing body of translations of his research into English from the original French not only of his books from 1961 - 1976 but in more recent times of his lectures, speeches and interviews from 1973 – 1984. Foucault’s research theories particularly in the English speaking world have developed in significance in academic circles specifically in the fields of history, social studies and cultural studies. The interest and application of Foucault’s theories in the English speaking world was partly due to his adoption of the University of California’s Berkeley campus from 1979 as his home away from home. This move helped refined his thinking through his interaction with philosophers Pete Brown and Hubert Dreyfus and also with the anthropologist Paul Rabinow. His rock star like reception in California and the subsequent growing popularity of his texts and theories in the English speaking world has been a factor in the reassessment of his work by French academics in recent years. They had previously placed his research within the confines of one of a vast number in the pantheon of French theorists. According to Paras (2006) a newer generation of French academics who have been influenced by his growing philosophical reputation see his work as one of the driving forces of postmodernism. The interest in and application of a Foucaultian approach within history and social science academic circles is in response to the changing nature of society which saw a rapid increase in globalisation and decolonisation. Foucault’s star continued to rise in the US after his death. This coincided with the sunset of communist Europe which was embodied in the language of ‘perestroika’ and ‘glasnost’ which represented the dying gasps of state based socialism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. At this time the rejection of Marxism as a flawed social experiment by western intellectuals in a time of post-feminism with a perceived need to intellectually counter growing neo-liberalism within all aspects of society including the academe saw French poststructuralism in general and specifically Foucault’s work on the rise. Poststructuralism offered what Marxist analysis could not offer; complex non-unitary theories that could be creatively

59 applied to help decipher the emerging new times. Although Foucault saw himself outside of the confines of the terms of both structuralism and poststructuralism35 his research methods have links to both. According to Paras (2006) it was neo-liberal theorists in France during the early years of Mitterrand’s rule in 1985 that helped kill-off any adoption of Foucault as the grand thinker of France. Until the mid 1970s, Marxist thinking along with Feminism and Deconstructionist theory was a counter weight to critique capitalism, democracy and politics in Western intellectual circles. In effect the end of the Cold War in 1991 meant that the tipping point of critique of western society by academics through a Marxist analysis of history class struggle and its consequent filtering through to society from the political level had been exhausted. Alternative ideas and theories needed to be explored to explain, make sense of, criticise, analyse and justify contemporary social practices. Like the theories and practices of Globalisation and Feminism, the theories of Foucault have offered academic circles an alternative to the Marxist tradition and its recent proponents Gramsci, Althusser and Habermas who critiqued society from the 1960s to the present. Unlike ‘Marxism’ there is no ‘Foucaultism’ as Foucault did not believe that a single unifying theory of history had meaning hence his rejection of Marx. For Foucault, there was ‘no one size fits all’ historical analysis, more a zigzag trajectory of theories. Based on the evidence of his voluminous writings and lectures Foucault fought against any attempt to construct a coherent system as he did not trust overarching theoretical systems or ‘metanarratives’ that claimed to grant once and for all the answers to historical questions related to social, economic and political concerns. Some of Foucault’s historiographers are concerned about this including Gary Gutting (1994) who states that, ‘Foucault’s work is at root ad hoc, fragmentary and incomplete. Each of his books is determined by concerns and approaches specific to it and should not be understood as developing a theory or a method that is a general instrument of intellectual progress’ (p. 2)36. It is this very lack of ‘a general instrument of intellectual progress’ that creates a space for the use of what Foucault (1974) called his

35 See Michel Foucault, The Order of Things, p. xv. 36 Gutting (2001) softens his position on Foucault by stating, ‘… there is no methodological or theoretical unity of Foucault’s thoughts that will support any single comprehensive interpretation’ (pp. 258 – 259).

60 ‘philosophical toolbox’ to assist researchers in the application of specific methods developed by Foucault. Despite this criticism, Foucault (1991c) is clear on the singular goal of his research. He states, ‘(M)y objective…has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects’ (p. 7). Through an analysis of discourse and its manifestation in power/knowledge this dissertation attempts to create a history of how citizenship constructs subjects.

2.5.1 Power/Knowledge and citizenship This section traces the growing knowledge on the discursive nature of citizenship. The purpose of this section of the literature review is to add to the current thinking on the role of power/knowledge in the formation of understandings of citizenship discourse. The theory of power/knowledge suggests that singular versions of truth are constructed to assist dominant groups to align values, beliefs and the actions of citizens to the will of the dominant group’s particular system of thought (Foucault 1980). This position is evidenced in the Literature Review and specifically in the data presented in Chapter Five. A careful reading of the literature demonstrates that although Foucaultian thinking has provided an alternative perspective of history and the social sciences, there has been little systematic analysis of the implications of Foucault’s research of subjectivity and specifically power/knowledge for reviewing pertinent citizenship studies. The intention of this section is to add to the small but growing area of knowledge. As Foucault states, ‘(T)he essential political problem for the intellectual is not to criticize the ideological contents supposedly linked to science, or to ensure that his own scientific practice is accompanied by a correct ideology, but that of ascertaining the possibility of constituting a new politics of truth. The problem is not changing people's consciousness- or what's in their heads-but the political, economic, institutional regime of the production of truth’ (Rabinow ed., 1991:74). The analysis of citizenship discourse demonstrates the fundamental capacity of power/knowledge to socially control minds and bodies. This capacity of power/knowledge is exerted through governmentality and its metaphor of panopticism (Foucault 1980). The metaphor of ‘panopticism’ suggests that citizens are always under

61 surveillance37. This scrutiny promotes docile minds and bodies through practices that suggest external monitoring of the subject at the government, institutional or community level to ensure compliance to the dominant discourse. In this way ‘governmentality’ or biopolitics promotes self-discipline to shape subjectivity to dominant discourses. It is through this process of governmentality that control mechanisms become internalised in order to socially control the minds and bodies of citizens to create compliant subjects and responsible citizens (Foucault 1980). In the literature biopolitics, power/knowledge and race has been previously identified by McConnochie et al (1989) as a method of truth production that, ‘… constructs racial categories or systems… assigns particular traits or characteristics to those racial categories, allocates individuals to particular groups, and assumes that all individuals who have been classified within that racial group exhibit the traits or characteristics of that group’ (p. 5-6). This study supports Coleman and Higgins (2000) in Racial and Cultural Diversity as they state that ‘(R)ace is a social construct. It is an intellectual, cultural and propagandic artefact that a dominant group produces… (P)erceptions of race develop around – but simultaneously excuse or camouflage – relations of socio-economic and political power. Race is thus an effective reinforcement of power relations’ (p.62). The idea of race as a social construct in order to create racial hierarchies or ‘Othering’ was explored by Said (2003). He researched stereotypes created by the West about the peoples of the Middle East in his foundational text ‘Orientalism’. He claimed that the creation of difference has been used by power interests in the West to humiliate, degrade and colonise the Middle East and middle-eastern immigrants. In this research, Said traces the history of the West’s ‘othering’ of the East by the overriding perception that Europe was enlightened, rational and powerful whereas the East was barbarian, emotional and dangerous. The work of Arendt (1994) gives a practical rendition of how ‘othering’ can lead to the construction of ‘enemies’. Her text details the trial of Erich Eichmann in 1960 and explains how the Nazis were able to create enemies from ‘others’ through the transmission of a language of classification that denied rights to Jewish citizens as part of a genocidal process. Importantly Arendt’s work highlights the power of language to

37 see Foucault Discipline and Punish, pp: 195-228 and Power/Knowledge, pp: 195-228.

62 construct beliefs and justify actions by citizens. This use of the language of classification and the systems of thought that are associated with it are detailed in Foucault’s ‘The Order of Things’ (2006b) first published in 1966. In this text he places the analysis of language as the pre-eminent form of research above the research of human experience or ‘phenomenology’ as the best way to understand reality. It was from this time that Foucault began to be called a ‘structuralist’ although he was uncomfortable38 with this and other labels including ‘poststructuralist’. The Foucaultian use of genealogy to trace characteristic forms of power/knowledge and the workings of biopolitics in the daily life of citizens has been utilised by Carabine (2001) in ‘Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A Genealogical Approach’. Carabine’s (2001) use of genealogy is employed to, ‘… look for discontinuities or examples that challenge your claims … and to situate the interpretation within other historical accounts and analyses of the period in an attempt to immerse and contextualise the ideas, beliefs, values and practices of the time’ (pp. 306- 307). Ong (1999) also links power/knowledge to understandings of citizenship. She states, ‘Michel Foucault uses regime to refer to power/knowledge schemes that seek to normalize power relations. By appealing to particular truths that have been developed about science, culture, and social life, these systems of power/knowledge define or regulate subjects and normalize their attitudes and behavior’ (p.113). This approach is not common yet potentially it can provide understandings that have previously not been revealed through more traditional research practices. Therefore this is one of the reasons why I employ genealogy in this dissertation rather than traditional history methods.

2.6 The literature as methodology Archaeology…takes as the object of its description what is usually regarded as an obstacle: its aim is not to overcome differences, but to analyse them, to say what exactly they consist of, to differentiate them. (The Archaeology of Knowledge, p.188)

38 In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault (2002a) states, ‘(D)o not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order. At least spare us their morality when we write’ (p. 19).

63 Humanity does not gradually progress from combat to combat until it arrives at universal reciprocity, where the rule of law finally replaces warfare; humanity installs each of its violences in a system of rules and thus proceeds from domination to domination. (‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ in The Foucault Reader, p.85)

This section of the review analyses the literature on the application of archaeology and geneaology as techniques of historical research.

2.6.1 Archaeology and Genealogy Genealogy and archaeology within the Foucaultian tradition can be seen as two distinct yet unified modes of method and analysis. Genealogy is a method of analysing historical descent and the emergence of discourse in order to question the rationality of current thought and practice. According to Smart (2002) archaeology serves as a methodology for isolating and analysing local discursivities in a manner which is complementary to geneaology. As such archaeology retains a secondary presence in genealogy. The traditional understanding of an archaeologist is a person who studies the past through the discovery and examination of various artefacts. This is done by digging through layers of earth deposits to find new evidence about life in the past. As an appropriation Foucault’s ‘archaeology’ is the process of discovering language usage and its relationship to discourse by digging through layers of the past represented in discursive texts. Through this archaeological process an analysis of statements and words within the archive can explain the genesis of discourse and its divisions in particular circumstances. Specifically, archaeology’s purpose is to determine and to bring to the surface the source of an idea or discourse. It also shows what is understood at a given time about a specific subject in order to cast light on contemporary thinking. This is done to show an idea’s beginning and thus give perspective or a background to current thought. Foucault (2002a) describes the purpose of archaeology as, ‘…to discover the domain of existence and functioning of a discursive practice … it seeks to discover the whole domain of institutions, economic processes, and social relations on which a discursive formation can be articulated … what it wishes to uncover is the particular level in which history can give place to definite types of discourse…’’ (p. 182).

64 Foucault’s reworking of the word ‘archaeology’ demonstrates the polysemous nature of words and language and also highlights his playfulness. Words and language have the capacity to take on additional meanings while still retaining elements of their original meaning. Foucault’s use of the polysemous effect of language demonstrates the playfulness of his thinking, his capacity to imagine new meanings to previously understood words and to argue for their use within research practice. It is with this understanding that I also use archaeology as a methodological tool. The purpose of using ‘archaeology’ within this dissertation is to bring to the surface the formation of the public discourse of Australian citizenship as represented within one newspaper on Australia Day. The archive commences in 1946 and leads into the official bringing into being of the legal, political, social and cultural entity known as ‘the Australian citizen’ in January 1949. It concludes in 2007 with citizenship increasingly politicised through the re-introduction of citizenship tests and questions over the rights of citizenship as were tested in the David Hicks case. This historical approach highlights the changing discourse of citizenship, its relations of power and the constitutive nature of discourse. The identification within this research of the politicisation of citizenship is what Foucault calls a discontinuity or a break in thinking related to a specific knowledge. In Foucault’s ‘archaeology’ groups of like statements or statements linked to a particular discourse, in this case Australian citizenship, when identified become the ‘archive’. This methodology is explored in Chapter Four. The establishment of an archive of Australian citizenship for this research enabled a detailed and sophisticated analysis to be developed, implemented and evaluated in order to examine forms of language which circulate within a given period as manifestations of power/knowledge. Genealogy supplements archaeology and like archaeology is also focussed on how history can help to explain contemporary discourses. In its traditional non- Foucaultian use, genealogy is the process by which the intricate web of family history is laid out to show family ancestry, in effect the human traces of where one has come from and ones relationship to their ancestry. For Foucault (1980; 1998) his use of the term genealogy is about tracing the descent of the political history of truth. In relation to this research it is where citizens’ understanding and knowledge have come from, the source

65 of the relations of power, what effect that has had on the way they think, speak, write and act in the present. It also demonstrates that history is not a continual line of progression, evolution or teleology but rather a series of discontinuities and ruptures brought about through the interplay of contingent factors. Putting this idea into simpler language our present and future are not historical inevitabilities. In this way humans are not witnesses to history but our words and deeds move events in new directions. Foucault appropriated the term genealogy from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and this appropriation is but one example of the role that Nietzschean ideas played in many of Foucault’s texts. Foucault (1991d) states that ‘effective history’ or genealogy, ‘… differs from the history of historians in being without constants. Nothing in man – not even his body – is sufficiently stable to serve as a basis for self-recognition or for understanding other men. The traditional devices for constructing a comprehensive view of history and for retracing the past as a patient and continuous development must be systematically dismantled’ (pp. 87 - 88). Foucault’s use of the idea for genealogy came from Nietzsche’s text The Genealogy of Morals (1887). Nietzsche states that citizenship and civil society, ‘the human polity’ began with a ‘pack of savages’ and a ‘race of conquerors’ with the Nietzschean Weltanschauung or world view characterised by the conflict between these two groups. This conflict is an expression of what Nietzsche calls the ‘will to power’ in which humans continually struggle with their instinctual drives which strive for continued survival and for power over other drives (Macey 2000). He expanded on this genealogy in his posthumously published book Will to Power (1901). He theorised in this text that there are ‘no facts’ but only ‘interpretations’ and that the world itself is ‘a monster of energy, without beginning and without end, a sea of forces’ with ‘power’ not an object to be possessed but rather as a permanently contested balance of power and forces (Macey 2000). It is in this genealogy that Nietzsche provides the basis for Foucault’s theses on the nature of power. According to Nietzsche it is in this permanently contested balance of power and forces, the impersonal structures of power that ‘truths’ such as good and evil, morality and civil society are constructed and imposed, in other words genealogy is ‘the will to truth’. Nietzsche became a powerful influence not only on Foucault but also the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) and Jacques

66 Derrida (1930-2005) the French philosopher and principal theorist of ‘deconstruction’. Foucault first used the term genealogy in 1971 in his short but influential work called ‘The Orders of Discourse’ (1971a) and the essay ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’ (1991d). From 1971 Foucault began to utilise genealogy rather than archaeology to assist in analysing problems of power, knowledge and the formation of the subject. Genealogy’s purpose is to lay bare the struggles of the ‘hazardous play of dominations’ within a given discourse to show historical change as the succession of one mode of domination over another with the concurrent emergence of forms of resistance in what Foucault calls ‘the relations of power’. At its simplest genealogy can be understood as a tracing of the descent of discourse to historicise social and political truths. This understanding adds to and extends the Nietzschean term ‘the will to truth’. By using genealogy the dissertation attempts to lay bare the history of the social and political truths of citizenship and its characteristic forms of power-knowledge within one newspaper from 1946 – 2007. It also demonstrates how relations of power have shaped the subjectivity of the Australian citizen. Consequently ‘Australian citizenship’ can be seen as a contested field of historical determination where the struggles for the domination of the systems of rules are played out with and by those capable of seizing the rules inverting their meaning and redirecting them against those who had initially imposed them. In this way the history or genealogy of citizenship is seen not simply as ‘continuities’ but as a series of the discontinuous, the discontinuities becoming new branches of thought and power/knowledge that are allowed to grow before new discontinuities take over and change the nature of citizenship through the succession of one domination over others. The methodology used for the dissertation is a form of Foucaultian discourse analysis which uses genealogy to trace its characteristic form of power/knowledge. By doing so it demonstrates the existence of the discourse the workings of power/knowledge in shaping subjectivity and governmentality in the daily life of citizens. Using Foucaultian theory these discontinuities were found and contextualised. Additionally the workings of biopolitics and governmentality in relation to citizenship were examined in Ong’s (1999) ‘Flexible Citizenship’. In this study she used Foucault’s power/knowledge

67 to help explain the normalisation of behaviours and attitudes in migrant populations from China who had settled in the United States.

2.6.2 Postmodernism, Poststructuralism and their relationship to citizenship In addition to power/knowledge, citizenship as understood through poststructuralist and postmodernist thinking also appears in the literature in particular Bauman (1992; 1997) and Giddens (1991). A brief review of postmodernism’s relationship to poststructuralism and citizenship is explored through the following review of the literature. Like all philosophical fields of enquiry postmodernism itself is a contested space of meaning, theory and practice. Postmodernism therefore is also not beyond questioning and critique. Postmodernism and its relationship to poststructuralism also has a contested meaning in the literature. Commentators on this relationship such as Garton (2003) see postmodernism as a movement only within the arts, ‘… which has challenged modernist assumptions that truth lies at a deeper level, beyond realistic forms of representation’ (p.53) whereas poststructuralism is a movement which questions ‘theories that find the explanation for the nature of social life and human culture in deeper social, economic, psychological and cultural structures. In contrast poststructuralism eschews the search for causes grounded in hidden structures, instead focusing on how language and culture themselves shape social and cultural life’ (p.53) rather than a practice that underpins postmodernism. This is also the view of Williams (1999). He sees poststructuralism as carrying, ‘… a different momentum, usually unrelated to, and antithetical to, Lyotard’s postmodernism’ (p.11). I argue in the literature review that there is a relationship in citizenship discourse between postmodernism and poststructuralism but they are nevertheless quite distinct. Jean-Francois Lyotard’s (1924-1998) text, ‘The Postmodern Condition’ (1984) sees the postmodern not as a historical period occurring after modernism but rather a shift in mood or perception brought about by changes in the organisation of knowledge. In this shift knowledge became commodified as a result of a decline in the importance of labour in the post-industrial world (Macey 2001). To Lyotard (1984), postmodernism is characterised by ‘a disbelief in grand narratives’ and is a place where there is ‘a state of fragmentation and heterogeneity’. According to Williams (2005) this is a place where

68 there, ‘… are different competing accounts around any event and where these cannot be reconciled’ (p.85). Lyotard (1984) defines the postmodern as ‘incredulity toward metanarratives’ (p. xxiv). Lyotard’s philosophy is centred on knowledge of events that resist one-sided approaches or complete identification as objects of knowledge. According to Lyotard (1984) there are limits to knowledge and to procedures of reconciling perspectives. These limits are crucial to any just and sensitive way of responding to events and to the feelings that reveal them. Lyotard does not embrace post- modern fragmentation and heterogeneity as an end in itself but rather wants the splintering of truth and the limits of knowledge to be better understood so that justice and resolution of events can occur for all parties (Williams 2005). Lyotard (1984) states the word ‘postmodern’ is the best word to describe the condition of knowledge in highly developed societies. He states that the word ‘postmodern’ was in current use ‘… on the American continent… (and) … designates the state of our culture following the transformations which, since the end of the nineteenth century, have altered the game rules for science, literature, and the arts. The present study will place these transformations in the context of the crisis of narratives’ (p. xxiii). According to Lilly (1998) postmodernism, ‘… aims at exposing how … the construction of political identity and the operationalization of basic values take place through the deployment of conceptual binaries such as we/them, responsible/irresponsible, rational/irrational, legitimate/illegitimate, normal/abnormal, and so on … (P)ostmodernists draw attention to the ways in which the boundary between … (these) terms is socially reproduced and policed’ (p.591). In Turner’s (2000) essay ‘Liberal Citizenship and Cosmopolitan Virtue’ a type of postmodern citizenship is identified as being ‘…organised around the market place of anonymous strangers, where these strangers are mobile and disconnected … postmodern … citizenship will be characterised by cool loyalties and thin patterns of solidarity… (leading to) … the McDonaldisation of political commitments where … modern political life would resemble a ‘drive through democracy’ (pp. 27-28). Such views have a strong sense of irony which is an important part of postmodernism but significantly Turner sees the market place as the organising force of his imagined postmodern society. I argue in the review that

69 Turner’s identification of liberal citizenship is an example of governmentality or biopolitics which promotes enterprise thinking which shapes subjectivity. Individuals as members of the imagined community are influenced by the discourse of citizenship and as subjects they are also part of it. They play a role in determining its limits while at the same time being constituted by it. From this perspective history is not inevitable and human nature is not immutable as attitudes, values and beliefs change over time. This is a familiar theme in both structuralism and poststructuralism. Foucault is not alone in his reference to the subject and the system as this is also an area of theory for Bourdieu (1990). The interconnectedness of the subject and the system and the interplay between the individual and discourse are also explored by Deleuze (1976). Thus Foucault’s ‘originality’ is based on his analysis of historical studies in order to question the rationality of present conditions.

2.6.3 The nature and function of discourses as sites of regulation and resistance ‘Discursive relations are… at the limit of discourse: they offer it objects of which it can speak, or rather … they determine the group of relations that discourse must establish in order to speak of this or that object’ ( The Archaeology of Knowledge, p. 46).

Discourse within this dissertation means, ‘…the general domain of all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements’ (Foucault, 1972:80). In this way a discourse is a regulated body of knowledge or ‘the language used in representing a given social practice from a particular point of view’ (Fairclough 1995b:56). Foucault (1998a) states that, ‘… it is in discourses that power and knowledge are joined together’ (p.100). Thus a discourse can be an organisation, institution or a body of regulated practices in this case the discourse of citizenship. It can also be the construction of knowledge through relations of power brought about through government, institutional, organisational and individual practices. For Foucault (2002a) a discourse functions to produce an accepted truth or knowledge. Thus truth becomes a cultural construction in that it is created by those who exert the most influence at a particular time for a specific purpose. Truth is part of a

70 disciplining regime to create social conditioning. As Riggins (1997) states discourses do not merely reflect reality like mirrors instead, ‘… they are artefacts of language through which the very reality they purport to reflect is constructed’ (p. 2). As Fairclough (1995a) states discursive practices in discourses do not simply mirror and reflect social relations ‘they construct and constitute them’. Specifically, van Dijk (1997) states, ‘… discourse plays an important role in the production and reproduction of prejudice and racism’ (p.31). Prejudice and economic, ethnic and social inequality contribute to relations of power enhancing and cementing the ongoing struggle for truth in Australian society. Discourses are interlinked sites of regulation and dissent. They are regulated systems for the production of power/knowledge that although controlled, allow for limited dissent by resistance or modification. This dissent is always regulated within the discourse. Discourses place limits on what can and cannot be said at any one time and therefore they place limits on the questions that can and cannot be asked to control power/knowledge within society at that time. This control of power/knowledge and self- regulation occurs through the hybridisation and cross-fertilisation of discourses. As Wodak (2001) states this shows that discourses are open and hybrid and not closed systems. A discourse about a specific topic can ‘find its starting point within one field of action and proceed through another one. Discourses and discourse topics 'spread' to different fields and discourses. They cross between fields, overlap, refer to each other or are in some other way socio-functionally linked with each other’ (Wodak, 2001:67). The discourse of citizenship and inequality are interlinked and one-and-the same. They refer to each other and are functionally linked with each other. Citizenship and its subject the citizen purport to create equality of opportunity through the possession or capability of possession of full national, political, economic and social rights and obligations. However, as globalisation continues to inculcate all areas of society not merely the economic but also the social, cultural and political, notions of citizenship and the citizen are blurring at the periphery. This is due in no small part to the growing migratory, economic and informational effects of globalisation and the social, political and cultural effects of the colonising nature of the economic philosophy of neo-liberalism39.

39 For a discussion of neo-liberalism see Chapter 3.04, ‘Capitalism and Neo-liberalism’, pp.85-90.

71 2.8 Summary of Chapter Two This chapter presented reviews of the literature to show key conclusions and presents evidence of how this dissertation links with the literature of citizenship research and the discourse of citizenship. There are a number of key conclusions from the literature. The following conclusions are listed in the order in which they appear in the review. Firstly, there are examples in the literature of texts that can be considered as ‘founding texts’ due to their significant place in setting agendas and perimeters of knowledge for the discourse of citizenship. Based on this the documents and texts of Marshall (1949) and Habermas (1989) were reviewed to show their main concerns, concepts and theories as part of the discourse. These were contrasted with Foucault (2007) who saw individual rights and responsibilities of citizens as a product of forces of cohesion and resistance to centralised government. The study of Australian citizenship as a discourse is an area of research that continues to grow. The review of the literature shows a broad sweep of interests associated with Australian citizenship studies and research. These include; ‘rights and responsibilities’, ‘defining citizenship and its purposes’, ‘the roles of citizens’, ‘the history of Australian citizenship’, ‘egalitarianism’, ‘normative and legal understandings of citizenship’, ‘poststructuralism and citizenship’, ‘Indigenous Australians’, ‘citizenship as a site for discrimination’, ‘cultural minority groups’, ‘genocide’, ‘education’, ‘genetics’, ‘education’s role in constructing types of citizens’, ‘sexuality’, and ‘the role of feminism’. Such a broad range of interests and perspectives suggests that citizenship is a multi-dimensional site for knowledge production and cultural construction. The exploration of knowledge as a discourse is most associated with the analysis of the French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault and a review of his contributions to understandings of discourse through archaeology and genealogy were undertaken. Their implications for society in terms of power/knowledge were undertaken to show the alignment of this dissertation with the research of Foucault. Additionally citizenship has also been viewed in the literature as a response to postmodernism and poststructuralism. In particular Bauman (1993, 1995) and Giddens (1990, 1991) were highlighted in this

72 field of enquiry and a review of the theories of postmodernism from Lyotard (1984) and Bourdieu (1990) showed the links with Foucaultian thought to this dissertation. A review of the literature related to media constructions was also carried out to show the links with past research and this dissertation. Manning (2004; 2007) shows that the Australian media has played an important role in social construction and transmission of beliefs. His work echoes the research of van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997 and 1998) who analysed media texts to generate new understandings of the role of the media as an institutional form of power in the production of racism. The literature also sees discourses as places of resistance. Apart from Foucault this featured heavily in the works of Fairclough (1995), Wodak (2001) and van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997 and 1998) and these texts were reviewed again showing the links between past research and this dissertation. This summary concludes Chapter Two. A further review is conducted in Chapter Three which continues with a specific literature review related to discourses exterior to citizenship that shape and condition it. In so doing these discourses also produce citizens that are shaped and constructed according to the conditioning effects of the specific discourses of globalisation, localisation and capitalism.

73 Chapter Three: Review of the literature of citizenship discourse and its exteriorities

As to the principle of exteriority: I have never tried to do the analysis of the text starting from the text itself … I have attempted to dispense with the principle of textuality by placing myself in a dimension which was that of history … I have tried to mark the discursive events that have their place not in the selfsame interior of the text or of many texts, but which have their place in the fact of the functions or roles that are given to different discourses in the interior of a society. To pass outside of the text in order to rediscover the function of discourse in the interior of a society – that is what I call the principle of exteriority. (Michel Foucault, The Will to Knowledge, 1971c)

3.1 Citizenship and its exteriorities Having reviewed the literature of citizenship, Australian citizenship discourse and Foucault’s findings on the nature and importance of discourse in Chapter Two, this chapter reviews the literature of the exteriorities of citizenship discourse. In Chapter Three the review proceeds to trace citizenship’s discursive descent to external factors that condition citizenship discourse. The review of the literature has identified that citizenship discourse can be viewed not only through the discourse itself but also through external factors that shape the discourse (Foucault 1971a; 1971b). This review of the descent of citizenship discourse provides evidence within the literature review that three factors in particular condition citizenship and subjectivity. The three ‘exteriorities’ that condition the discourse are: 1. Globalisation – how globalisation affects the subjectivity of the citizen. 2. Localisation and democracy – how local factors alter globalising forces on the subjectivity of the citizen. 3. Capitalism and neo-liberalism – how the practice and philosophy of capitalism and its refinement in neo-liberalism condition the subjectivity of the citizen. The relevant literature for each of these factors is reviewed below.

74 3.2 Globalisation and citizenship The literature on the effects of globalisation on citizenship discourse highlights a broad sweep of interests in this matter. These interests that shape citizenship from a global perspective include; ‘global media’, ‘the nation state’, ‘globalisation and unemployment’, ‘cultural integration’, ‘social guiding systems’, ‘consumerism’, ‘technology’, ‘inclusivity and exclusivity’, ‘neo-liberalism’, ‘markets’ and ‘globalisation as a discourse’. The literature pertaining to these studies and research interests are discussed below. Controversies over citizenship have not been a peculiarly Australian phenomenon. These concerns are also a product of globalisation. Theorists such as Appadurai (1996; 2000) see the coalescence of issues and controversies in global terms as a product of global media that discursively constructs citizenship. These constructions marginalise some people by representing them in disempowered texts and images while sustaining, enabling and strengthening those in positions of relative privilege. The modernist philosopher Habermas (1989) believes that a redefining of national states in a post-Cold War era with, dislocating shifts of identity provoked by mass migration and globalisation, are accompanied by ‘defensive reactions’ to strengthen these threatened identities. It could be argued that the Cronulla riot in December 2005 was one such ‘defensive reaction’. These social and political dilemmas have raised probing questions about what binds citizens together into a shared social, political and economic community. Locally, adding to these complex global challenges is persistent unemployment in Indigenous communities, segments of migrant communities and suburbs of unemployment and generational welfare dependency such as Macquarie Fields in western Sydney. Unemployment creates the strongest prospect of marginalisation from a sense of full membership in civic community even in rich nations such as Australia (Gittins 2004a; 2004b; 2007 and, Tiffen and Gittins 2004). In the current era of globalisation theories of citizenship proposed by Appadurai (1996; 2000) and Ong (1999) essentially interrogate how people from different cultural and historical backgrounds can be equal members of a common society. Researchers including Walter and MacLeod (2002) have examined globalisation’s links to citizenship and see the fluidity of globalisation as the driving force for our changing understandings

75 of citizenship. In particular Appadurai (1996; 2000) sees citizenship practices responding to global issues. These global issues include modern mass migrations, where citizens of previously colonised countries migrate to developed nations, as a type of colonisation in reverse. Such migratory change brings with it inevitable changes to intellectual, cultural and political life in Western countries including Australia. In Ong’s (1999) study of Chinese-Americans she notes that citizenship is becoming a flexible phenomenon due to globalisation. It has increased the movement from society to society of capital, information and people. Citizenship in this sense is not a system of immutable practices but a fluid, set of flexible practices that ebbs and flows with the continual movement of capital, information and people. This flexibility provides changing disciplinary regimes and subjectivity. The texts of the Middle Eastern expert, Friedman (2000) sees the global effects of the Cold War as the guiding system of the world from 1945-1991. This ‘global guiding system’ shaped government policies which in-turn at the meso-level affected capital markets, industry, education, culture and media. At the micro-level this system shaped personal choice, individual challenges and opportunities. These are what Foucault (1980) calls ‘the disciplinary and regulatory regimes’ that are manifested in power/knowledge and produced, reproduced and transmitted through media amongst other micro- techniques of power. The sociologist Giddens (1999) represents globalisation not from a point of flexibility but rather as a three-dimensional picture that interacts with local factors in different ways in diverse geographical areas mediated by technology. This mix of global and local trends is also reflected in the positioning of Orchard’s (2001) view of modern social change based on subjectivity as a contest between ‘globalisation from above’ versus ‘globalisation from below’. In Orchard’s (2001) study it is globalisation that is purely responsible for changes to democracy and citizenship due to the ‘…complexities and turbulence unleashed by globalisation are reflected in the political realm. The ideals and institutions of the state, citizenship and democracy are under great challenge. New thought about how democracy and government should be recast to deal with the consequences of globalisation grow exponentially. At the most general level, the debate is between neo-liberals defending the virtues of freer market capitalism on a global scale,

76 and progressives defending cosmopolitan, liberal and social democratic ideas’ (p. 266). Orchard’s (2001) study provides further evidence that globalisation at the economic, political and social level is also added to the mix of current understandings of citizenship along with democracy and capitalism. Globalisation is also promoting new forms of citizenship practice such as enterprise citizenship (Briggs 2004). Evidence of the emergence of enterprise citizenship is found in Hamilton (2001). He states some citizens are, ‘… persuaded by the ideology of consumer capitalism’ (p.190) which is the set of beliefs and cultural practices that emphasise consumption, ‘… as the foundation of lifestyle’ (p.190). He states that globalisation works because, ‘… people have fallen in love with their chains’ (p.191). Individuals are enabled or produced by globalisation to be good citizens in a consumerist world. Their subjectivity is determined by their individual ability to position themselves in the consumerist and technologised world. This form of globalisation has improved wealth, consumption and health outcomes for enabled individuals. For those citizens not enabled by its mission globalisation creates greater social, economic and cultural divides (Appadurai 1996; 2000). The research of Castells (1998; 2001) focuses on the social, economic and cultural divisions associated with globalisation, technology and neo-liberalism. Castells (1998) states his belief that globalisation is shaping responses to inequality while at the same time being responsible for it: ‘The world is in the midst of a historical transformation...multidimensional...technological, economic, social, cultural, political, geopolitical... the connection between the new socio-economic system and the generation of inequality and social exclusion on an unprecedented, planetary scale...a social crisis...both old and fundamentally new (UNRISD Conference paper). The economic historian Landes (2002) sees globalisation as a system of practices to remove structural inequalities in terms of linking prosperity, health, and happiness in what he calls ‘convergence’. This convergence he states is the, ‘…watchword of the day, the promise of eventual equality, of the generalization of prosperity, health, and happiness. That, at any rate, is what economic theory tells us, assuming mobility of the factors of production’ (p. 517). This idea of the importance of convergence is echoed in

77 the work of Marginson (2001) who sees globalisation as, ‘…the process of economic and cultural convergence at the world level’ which then flows on to local concerns. According to George (2001) globalisation as a contest between practices of inclusion and exclusion. She states that, ‘(T)his combat is really between those who want inclusive globalization based on cooperation and solidarity...No one denies that the chief victims are the billion people living on less than a dollar a day and the three billion - half the world - making do with less than two dollars per day. But suddenly the injuries they endure seem relevant to us all’ (p. 48). The practices of globalisation as a discourse is developed by Steger (2003). He argues that globalisation is a discursive reality which is defined by its narratives in that, ‘...globalization contains important discursive aspects in the form of ideologically charged narratives that put before the public a particular agenda of topics for discussion, questions to ask, and claims to make. The existence of these narratives shows that globalization is not merely an objective process, but also a plethora of stories that define, describe, and analyse that very process. The social forces behind these competing accounts of globalization seek to endow this relatively new buzzword with norms, values, and meanings that not only legitimate and advance specific power interests, but also shape the personal and collective identities of billions of people’ (2003:i-ii). Theorists such as Fukuyama (1992), George (2001) and Steger (2003) view the market place as the chief system of organising individual choice and opportunity. I argue in this literature review that this imagined market place develops enterprise thinking and this system of thought connects with the new realities and responsibilities of citizenship which I have labelled as ‘enterprise citizenship’. Further to this the Australian researcher Sheil (2001) views globalisation as producing a form of subjectivity through the power of free market economics. He states, ‘(M)arkets...have encouraged competitiveness and a culture of entrepreneurialism and innovation. Marketisation encourages a particular 'hidden curriculum', because markets are political and cultural institutions as much as economic ones. Markets not only allocate resources and distribute income, they also shape our culture, foster or thwart desirable forms of human development, and support a well defined structure of power' (p 207).

78 Marsh’s (2003) text grapples with some of the influences on the citizen and subjectivity and shows a greater clarity regarding the micro-effects of globalisation on individuals and their capacity to comply through the construction of ‘docile minds and bodies’. This broad research on various subject matters in relation to globalisation and Australia represented in the literature is framed by the social construction of populations that are gaining momentum in the discourse. Marsh’s (2003) text attempts albeit in a small way to deal with notions of the citizen and individuality and how these are disciplined and regulated by globalisation. In Foucault’s (1971a) The Orders of Discourse he states that one of the internal regulators of discourse occurs through the transmission of the research of academics which are then used to authorise specific enunciative modalities. This is evident in Vandenberg’s (2000) Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era which has contributions from seventeen academics as an appeal to its discursive authority. It has papers from Australian and international authors who theorise over the overlapping nature of citizenship and democracy and how changing understandings of these discourses differ from country to country based on political, economic, social and historical factors that shape subjectivity. Specifically the paper by Curtin (2000) titled ‘The Gendering of ‘Citizenship’ in Australia’ provides a historical analysis of the construction and reconstruction of Australian citizenship from a feminist perspective. In this form of power/knowledge particular images or representations of the citizen are privileged over others. According to Curtin this has resulted in differential access to rights specifically at the social and economic level. Further she states that, ‘(C)hallenges have also been made to theories of citizenship which assume there can exist a homogenous citizenry and that universal citizenship rights can iron-out the inequalities of the market place’ (p. 241). I argue that with the emergence in the discourse of enterprise thinking this system of thought attempts to ameliorate concerns over inequality. In this new reality to experience the full potential of citizenship individuals need to comply with ‘docile minds and bodies’ to enterprise thinking to achieve economic security. In this system of thought it is a citizen’s individual responsibility to achieve this rather than to a reliance on the state to assist the individual.

79 The researcher Pusey (2003) records and discusses personal accounts of economic reforms as a product of globalisation in his text, ‘The experience of Middle Australia’. Although avoiding a theoretical position on the construction of citizens, Pusey’s (2003) account aligns with Marginson (1997a) that education is a site for the construction of types of citizen. Pusey (2003) suggests that economic reform, economic rationalism or what he calls ‘globalisation’ have redefined our personal lives, possibly reshaping ‘our dispositions’ and ‘orientations towards others’ (p. xiii). In this section I argue that globalisation either through independent action, cultural transmission or deliberate importation as a contested discursive space is one of the forces that is creating new knowledges of Australian citizenship, new relations of power and also shaping subjectivity. Specifically globalisation at the cultural, social, economic and political level is creating new regulatory regimes particularly in the marketplace that discipline citizens in the formation of subjectivity. These new regulatory regimes are not conspiratorial but are brought about through the interplay of contingencies to promote enterprise thinking. This type of thinking enables or constrains individuals and communities to the structures inherent in globalisation that find their discursive form in citizenship to enact responsibilities to the state.

3.3 Localisation, democracy and citizenship Like globalisation, localisation is also a force that conditions subjectivity. Localisation in this context is the cultural positioning of globalisation at the national, community and individual level. According to Beiner (1995) citizenship as a structure that maintains national identity is being simultaneously undermined by globalising and localising pressures. These two linked yet opposing forces are not unrelated. Within the literature on globalisation the word localisation is usually used to refer to a resistance to globalisation. However, localisation is more than resistance to globalisation it is an effect of globalisation based on the capacity of a nation, community or individual to create a social, cultural, economic or political space that modifies globalising forces. Localisation40 demonstrates the growing complexity of globalisation as it interacts with

40 Localisation’s etymology is linked to geography. A number of foundational texts were analysed to determine the etymology of localisation. These included literature by the American historians Kennedy

80 local or national factors particularly in the democratic process. This exchange of power through the democratic process creates further knowledge on subjectivity and citizenship discourse. This use of the word localisation to explain the movement of power through place and space in 1945 has been used in texts since that time to help explain the new global world. With globalisation’s onward march in shaping societies in the 1990s theorists began to look at alternatives to this force. One alternative was labelled ‘localisation’ (Hines 2000). This term was appropriated by non-government organisations (NGOs), commercial entities, e-based entities and also individuals as a possible alternative to globalisation. The term localisation was appropriated by Hines (2000) and discursively imagined as an economic strategy to combat global forces through the use of new global trade. Her text, Localization: a global manifesto exhorts governments to use trade barriers to assist local producers. Protectionist policies have been anathema to national prosperity since the early 1980s and her views have not been embedded in the discourse of western nations since their publication. Despite this according to Monbiot (2003) several national Green Parties in Germany and France have trumpeted Hines’ localisation as a possible policy wall against increasing globalisation. Internet communities have also

(1999) and Schlesinger (1973) and the economist Wells (2003). Based on the analysis of primary sources localisation’s etymology can be traced to the Potsdam Declarations of 1945. These declarations were written at the Potsdam Conference located near Berlin in 1945 where the new post-World War Two world was discursively formulated by the leaders of the Big Three, the US, UK and USSR through the development of the ‘21 Declarations’ or ‘Protocols’. These protocols provided a discursive framework to eventually construct the new global world. Protocol Seven titled ‘War Crimes’ uses the word ‘localisation’. This protocol promotes the establishment of a War Crimes tribunal to ensure ‘swift and sure justice’. The declaration from 1945 states, ‘(T)he Three Governments have taken note of the discussions which have been proceeding in recent weeks in London between British, United States, Soviet and French representatives with a view to reaching agreement on the methods of trial of those major war criminals whose crimes under the Moscow Declaration of October, 1943 have no particular geographical localisation. The Three Governments reaffirm their intention to bring these criminals to swift and sure justice’ (Schlesinger, 1973:156). Through an extensive search of the literature this is the first instance of ‘localisation’ being used to explain a defined locality based on practices from another area. Localisation is used here to assist the ‘Big Three’ in the growing understanding of a global reality. It prefaces the future use of the all consuming ‘globalisation’ by almost fifty years. Here the word ‘localisation’ was published for the first time, to determine a general understanding and acknowledgement that legal decisions made in one country or region can affect citizens in countries or regions outside of the jurisdiction of that country or region.

81 used the term from the mid – 1990s to assist commercial and cultural transactions when explaining diverse differences in local communities. Localisation is also associated with anti-globalisation movements. The demonstration by citizens in 1999 against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and globalisation in general at the Seattle conference of the WTO is an example in the discourse of a practice that can be defined as a discontinuity. Its analysis has a general application to the role of the citizen in the new global world. According to Cavanagh et al (2002) these anti-globalisationists were from disparate groups. Those protesting included, ‘… environmentalists…students, religious activists, women’s rights activists, family farmers, health activists, indigenous people, and economic justice organizers from many countries…’ (p.54). These citizens were brought together through language. The diverse literature produced by these groups according to Cavanagh that brought the city of Seattle to a standstill contained ‘core principles’. Cavanagh identifies these core principles by stating that, ‘…democracy was perhaps the most common thread linking all the groups … ecological sustainability came next … also … localization…’ (p.54). The protesters had identified that democratic processes were not protecting their rights as citizens. The protesters wanted democracy to be ‘living’ ‘participatory’ ‘new’ and owned by the ‘people’. According to the protesters the political ideology of economic globalisation had shaped the discourse of democracy and citizenship contaminating its potential purity. The emergence of economic globalisation as a form of political ideology within the literature of citizenship demonstrates, democracy and citizenship are interlinked discursive sites. One cannot exist without the other. As Vandenberg (2000) has stated, ‘(C)itizenship and democracy have been central to modern concepts of mass society and the nation-state, respectively. In the changing circumstances of the global era, societies and states, stable and unstable alike, face questions of cohesion, order and sovereignty’ (p.3). Fischer (2003) states in this system democracy gets its essential rationale from the idea that citizens give their consent to be governed in exchange for the right to remove a government that displeases them. In the paper ‘Representative Government and Participatory Democracy’ (2000) Hindess analyses two knowledges of democracy. These are the direct participation of the people in choosing a government and the separation of the people from their government

82 through a system of representative practices. According to Hindess democracy is a contested discursive site because of these two knowledges. Localisation as a factor in the importation of global concerns and the transmission of meaning through newspaper texts is also explored in Manning’s (2004) Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism. He examines the reporting of Arabic and Muslim people in Sydney newspapers twelve months before and twelve months after September 11 2001. He found that a Saidian form of ‘othering’ had been imported from foreign news reporting. This importation occurred through the interplay of independent action and cultural transmission. This was then interpreted from the Australian perspective and used to ‘other’ Arabs and Muslims. Further, Coleman and Higgins’ (2000) Racial and Cultural Diversity explains how Indigenous concerns are backgrounded by multiculturalism as practiced in Australia, ‘… when the rhetoric of multiculturalism throws indigenous peoples into the catch-all of ethnic and racial minorities ... Racial discrimination and enforced cultural assimilation are always wrong. But the claims of indigenous peoples and those of migrant minorities are morally incommensurable, since the latter do not rest on dispossession and the violation of sovereignty’ (p.61). This backgrounding of Indigenous concerns is also apparent in the data presented in Chapter Five ‘The Results’. Coleman and Higgins paper throws further light on this phenomenon. Backgrounding of racial issues is another form of camouflage to avoid criticisms of discrimination and racism by dominant groups. In this part of the literature review I have argued that localisation or local responses to globalisation condition the discourse of citizenship. It is also partly accountable for subjectivity through the permissions and prohibitions that condition the thoughts, speech and actions of individual citizens. These rules and regulations through the disciplining regimes of citizenship discourse help form the subject in thought, speech and action. The enonce localisation predates globalisation but its discursive effects are less understood. With neo-liberalism’s onward march I argue that the term is beginning to be discursively appropriated and that localisation is better understood as an interpretation or local variant of globalisation but nevertheless distinct from its source. An example of this local interpretation of local concerns is in the treatment of the framing of minority groups including Indigenous Australians through discursive practices of race as

83 evidenced in the print media. I argue that localisation undermines theories of convergence which suggest that globalisation is causing ‘sameness’ and is breaking down the nation state. In this way I have argued that the literature on localisation and citizenship discourse is an emerging body of knowledge from Australian research and that the review of the texts presented builds on a growing discursive environment on localisation and its interplay with citizenship both from overseas and within Australia.

3.4 Capitalism and neo-liberalism Capitalism and its refinement in the discourse of neo-liberalism are external forces that condition citizenship discourse. The literature reviewed sees democracy and capitalism as the twin pillars of western society which in-turn constrains and develops citizenship practices. Since the fall of communism in Eastern Europe the researcher Noam Chomsky (1991; 2003; 2007) has shown through a critique of US domestic and foreign policy that there are a number of examples of the power of democracy and capitalism to shape citizens both at the individual and systemic level. A growing understanding of the power of political discourse in particular its role in the promotion of neo-liberalism as a third pillar of western society equal to democracy and capitalism is emerging from the literature particularly that which has been published after the events of September 11 2001. As previously stated Marx (1990) sees capitalism as a force of domination that perpetuates social and economic division. Theorists on capitalism such as Schumpeter (1942), Hayek (1944), Galbraith (1983), Rhodes (2000), Phillips (2002) and Wells (2003) place capitalism as a social force intertwined with democracy. These researchers mainly speak of capitalism as related to American society and its economy nevertheless, I include them due to the significance of their research and the related implications for Australia. Although each society has different traditions and histories in the current era of globalisation it is not unreasonable to use general theories about capitalism generated from one capitalist society and apply them to another such as from America to Australia. There are many differences between American society and Australian society. However, both countries were created as part of the Western colonial movement, both societies dispossessed the local Indigenous communities, both are immigrant societies and both

84 developed industrially and politically to such an extent that they are now prosperous first world democratic nations. Importantly both countries underwent a ‘cultural revolution’ which began in the 1960s. This cultural revolution changed the role of women, permitted the questioning of the role of authorities and strengthened the status of Indigenous and other minority groups. This revolution, ‘… established cultural identity as a central political concern’ (McKnight 2005:143). This central political concern comes into focus in Australia from the mid 1960s. In this literature review capitalism is understood as an economic system that encourages individual competition and private ownership. This economic competition creates efficient production, distribution, exhibition and consumption practices which produce profits or ‘capital’41. The capital is then used to establish new markets for goods and services. Capitalism provides expanding wealth for those citizens, corporations and governments enabled in its economic mission. However, those not enabled become marginalised and inequality both locally and globally grows. As Marx (1990) states expanding wealth, the mission of capital, can only occur if new markets are established and raw materials are available There are a number of Australian texts on capitalism and they are included in this review including McGregor’s (2001) study which used a Marxist analytic. He believes that the effect of capitalism is to create a class system which becomes the chief organising principle of modern capitalist societies, the mechanism by which power, privilege and inequality are distributed and institutionalised. McGregor (2001:28) states that, ‘(A)s the extremes of Australian society pull further and further apart, the sheer inequality and injustice generated by class get worse and worse; so does the social distress which accompanies them. The growth of a self-perpetuating underclass is part of this process of social polarisation and disenfranchisement.’ This view of the effects of capitalism can be seen as locked into a Marxist view of society as a class based system whereas class is increasingly seen as, ‘… an article of faith, not a fact of life’ (McKnight 2005:107). Thus McGregor’s work is an example of Australian researchers whose widely held views are heavily influenced by Marxist or purely structural thought. In this system of thought capitalism is linked with what Marx called the political superstructure which is

41 See Karl Marx, ‘Das Capital: Volume 1’, Chapter 4: The General Formula for Capital pp. 247-257.

85 a coercive and manipulative form of domination (Marx 1990). I argue in this review that such a position does not fully encapsulate current social practices that are informed by what I have labelled in this dissertation as neo-liberalism which promotes and encourages an emerging form of citizenship that I have labelled as enterprise citizenship. In Australia the research of Hamilton (2002:190) has promoted political discourse as a force that has been propelled by globalisation. He states globalisation ‘…represents not just the export and imposition of economic policies built on neo-liberal orthodoxy. It represents the export of a culture and a psychological predisposition based on growth, compulsive consumption and the exploitation of the natural world’. This linkage between globalisation, political discourse, psychological predisposition and consumption are also discussed in the works of ethicist Singer (1997, 2002 and 2004), the economist Gittins (2007) and Hamilton’s and Maddison (2007). Wodak (2001) states that due to the nature of discourse it can ‘find its starting point within one field of action and proceed through another one’ (p.67). According to Wodak (2001) discourses and discourse topics, '…spread to different fields and discourses. They cross between fields, overlap, refer to each other or are in some other way socio-functionally linked with each other’ (p.67). According to Bourdieu (1990) part of the regulation by the state, institutions and the individual can be seen in the specific language of the discourse of political ideology. This is the deliberate and systematic representations of truth that serve the interests of dominant groups and authorised voices to unify society through a complex set of social practices. These social practices are understood or performed through interactions with institutional forms of power including the print media that make individuals believe they are acting as free agents with their own thoughts, emotions and actions. For the discourse of political ideology to be utilised effectively it must have credibility. This credibility is gained through rising prosperity, employment opportunities and citizen satisfaction through growing access to consumer goods. For instance for neo-liberalism or a free market system to work, that is to be socially accepted it has to deliver to the citizen what it sets out to achieve: rising prosperity, greater individual opportunity and smaller government. However, according to Lowes (2006) this credibility is manufactured as the ‘… predominance of commercial messages and the focus on entertainment represent a form of censorship, by which information is controlled or mediated in a manner that

86 influences the expectations of people setting limits on what they see as possible and providing trivial subject matter as the basis for social interaction’ (p.163). This phenomenon is also discussed in Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent (1984). According to Burchell (1995), (W)hat is altogether missing … is a sense of the citizen as a social creation, as a historical persona, whose characteristics have been developed in particular times and places through the activities of social discipline, both externally on the part of governments and ‘internally’ by techniques of self-discipline and self- formation (p.548). Political discourse and its expression as ideology is not simply a manipulative technology of modern politics. Rather it is a complex set of forces of intentionality, effect and general tendencies, centred on language that is aligned through belief systems to assist in the promotion of ideas, values and representations to support dominant groups in the acquisition and exercise of power. As a complex set of forces its intention is to provide an understanding of a specific truth. Its effect is to create acceptance, resistance or modification of this truth. Its general tendency is to align capitalism, democracy and politics to limit or enhance human agency through structures that promote systems of thought. These systems of thought under the apparatus of neo-liberalism are currently based on the transmission of enterprise thinking to create ‘effective’ citizens. The discourses of capitalism and neo-liberalism play a major part in the conditioning of citizens. This movement of discourses aligning subjectivity to capitalism and neo-liberalism to promote and transmit enterprise thinking in citizens is not conspiratorial. It is the nature of discourse that the stakeholders within discourse will each strive for dominance over others (Foucault 1971a; 1971b). It is the exertion of power that causes discourse to be shaped by forces of resistance and modification which in turn allows the stakeholders within discourse to re-position power/knowledge. This in- turn effects citizenship practices at the political, capital and democratic level as individuals, groups and organisations use changes to relations of power to improve their strategic dominance or positioning within a defined social structure. Foucault (1980) sees individuals as a result of the effects of power and also a conduit of power in that, ‘… individuals are the vehicles of power not its point of application’ and that the, ‘… individual which power has constituted is at the same time its vehicle’ (p.98). This was

87 demonstrated with the ending of the Cold War in 1991 where ‘individuals’ were the vehicles of power in assisting the collapse of communist governments in Eastern Europe through their interpretation of ‘perestroika’, ‘glasnost’ and ‘people power’ (Briggs 2005). This theme is extended to more prosaic patterns by Thompson (2003) who sees the practices of individuals particularly where ‘people work’ is to the fore such as social work, medicine, nursing, teaching and youth and community work as a means of combating inequality or unequal relations of power. According to Thompson (2003) this can be achieved through a frame of understanding of the workings of power/knowledge within non-government institutions despite being seemingly neutral or independent of government control. Thompson sees individuals as capable of reconstituting relations of power to establish a more socially just world. This ‘future world’ view is contrasted with Van Dijk’s (1997) statement that sees discourse as playing an important role in the production and reproduction of inequality particularly at the political level. It is at this level that political ideology is separated from democratic principles by the filtering of perspectives of public opinion through the discursive practices of journalists and elites. Van Dijk is attempting to unveil the relations of power in government discourse and its effects on citizens at the micro-level without overtly suggesting, unlike Thompson (2003), practical ways to ameliorate the constraining practices. In van Dijk’s research the political truths comply with Foucault’s analysis that truth and knowledge are a historicised political construction however van Dijk analyses see power as hierarchical whereas Foucault emphasises the multi- networked nature of relations of power.

3.4.1 Social compliance and economics Apart from an understanding of the intent and effects of capitalism any research into citizenship discourse must also deal with the creation of social compliance through the use of economics. There is little dispute in the literature that economic policies alter subjectivity42. An understanding of current economic theory in the form of neo-liberalism also known as ‘free market economics’ is important as economic theories also express

42 See Eric Paras, Foucault 2.0, pp.106-107, discussion of Foucault’s interest in economics and subjectivity based on Foucault’s lectures in 1978 on bio-politics.

88 attitudes toward wider social and philosophical ideas, including the role of government in shaping society and alternatively in the role of the citizen in shaping the government. The promotion of cohesiveness and its resistance create social and economic division and cause further inequality through the marginalisation of others. In this way its exploitation of marginalised groups becomes an acceptable outcome for neo-liberalism as promoted by local and global relations of power. The economic philosophy of Smith (1776) based on ‘market liberalism’ is used to support the social and economic system of neo-liberalism. This system of thought sees the individual as paramount in an ongoing consumption cycle that exists to propel production of goods, services, skills and knowledge. According to the ethicist Singer (1997) this cycle is where wants create a form of deception that encourages increasing consumption without creating satisfaction. Alternatively this cycle of consumption and production is referred to by proponents of neo-liberalism as ‘the virtuous cycle’. In this model that promotes neo-liberalism ultimately even the poor benefit as consumption leads to new technologies utilised within civil society including improved health and education services that can be utilised by the poor or marginalised. In this socio- economic model, individual poverty becomes relative to the wealth of the nation and proponents of neo-liberalism contend that if a nation becomes increasingly prosperous the poor and disadvantaged will have greater access to resources created by this new wealth. This political truth encourages basic human emotions of greed and fear, particularly of others, while placating concerns about the civil and economic conditions of those less well off in society. Contemporary political global discourse on inequality is heavily influenced by Rawls book A Theory of Justice (1971) in which he states his 'justice as fairness' theory based on the premise that all citizens have an equal right to basic liberties including ‘equality of opportunity’. However, he develops his idea that social or economic inequalities have to be justified in terms of the benefits they bring to the least advantaged in what he calls the 'difference principle.' Rawls sees neo-liberalism as the best prospect to share basic rights, freedoms and opportunities. To Rawls neo-liberalism becomes an enabling power for the citizen and for many this is true. However, Rawls fails to mention that in many respects neo-liberalism is biased towards those who are already enabled and

89 have access to education, health and property rights and that segments of migrant communities, communities of welfare dependency, and large numbers of Indigenous communities continue to feel the full effects of colonisation which over time resulted in the removal of property and employment rights, the removal of children of mixed unions, the removal of language and religious connections to land.

3.6 Summary of Chapter Three This review of the literature traced the descent of discourse by examining the literature of citizenship and its exteriorities. I have argued based on Foucault’s theory of exteriority that the literature of citizenship discourse is found not only in studies of citizenship but in literature that is external to the discourse. This exteriority is found in the literature of globalisation, localisation/democracy, capitalism and neo-liberalism. This diverse range of literature allows for a more complete understanding of citizenship discourse and the role of contingent factors which may or may not play a role in the development of citizenship. I have argued that globalisation, localisation and neo-liberalism are contested discursive spaces. As factors in the discourse they create new knowledges of citizenship and new relations of power. This expression of power/knowledge is occurring through the interplay of social and political action, cultural transmission and cultural and political importation. In particular globalisation at the cultural, social, economic and political level is creating new regulatory regimes that discipline the citizen in the formation of their subjectivity. These new regimes are not conspiratorial but effectively promote enterprise thinking enabling or constraining individuals or groups to the structures inherent in globalisation that find their discursive form in citizenship. The review has found that in relation to Australian citizenship there is a limit to knowledge and that truth is fragmentary, splintered and heterogeneous. This section of the review provides evidence that the appropriation of language for political purposes has been identified in past literature as a significant factor in the identification of discursive traits within citizenship research. This appropriation of language demonstrates the limits of discourse. This discursive trait is evidenced in newspapers as the data source material for this study.

90 The genealogical approach of tracing the descent of citizenship discourse develops understandings of the role of power/knowledge in prohibiting and permitting what can and cannot be thought, spoken or acted at particular periods of history. The review identified an emerging dimension of citizenship discourse which I labelled as enterprise thinking. These practices embed systems of thought, conditioning and shaping individual and collective responses to authorised voices and events to promote greater economic and social responsibility of citizens to the state. It is through this understanding of power/knowledge and its relationship to citizenship discourse that the review leads to Chapter Four: The Methodology of the Study.

91 Chapter Four: The methodology of the study

I would like my books to be a kind of tool-box which others can rummage through to find a tool which they can use however they wish in their own area... I would like the little volume that I want to write on disciplinary systems to be useful to an educator, a warden, a magistrate, a conscientious objector. I don't write for an audience, I write for users, not readers. Michel Foucault, (1974) ‘Prisons et asiles dans le mecanisme du pouvoir’ in Dits et Ecrits, t. II. Paris: Gallimard, 1994, pp.523-4.

The cry goes up that one is murdering history whenever, in a historical analysis – and especially if it is concerned with thought, ideas, or knowledge – one is seen to be using in too obvious a way the categories of discontinuity and difference, the notions of threshold, rupture and transformation, the description of series and limits. One will be denounced for attacking the inalienable rights of history and the very foundations of any possible historicity (Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, p.15)

4.1 Introduction This chapter explains the methodology used to conduct the research described in this dissertation. The methodology used a Foucaultian analytic, known as genealogy supplemented with archaeology, to trace the descent of citizenship discourse. As described in Chapter One this tracing was done to analyse the continuities, transformations and discontinuities of discourse. The analysis of discourse allows for a greater understanding of how the individual or subject is formed through discursive structures and also how subjects shape discourse. By applying this methodology I have attempted to establish how discursive formations in the print media from 1946-2007 have been used to produce, reproduce and transmit understandings of the beliefs and values of cultural, economic and political groups in Australian society. The production, reproduction and transmission of beliefs and values in discourse shape and produce subjectivity (Foucault 1980; 1998). The Foucaultian analysis attempts to show how these understandings and constructions of truth have changed over time through the transformations and discontinuities manifested in the discourse as power/knowledge. The historical research method was chosen as it has the potential to show the interplay of contingent factors in the development of discourse and to provide alternative perspectives. This understanding of the role of contingency

92 rather than historical inevitability generates a capacity to question the rationality of current citizenship discourse. Through the application of the methodology described in this chapter a genealogy was established and is presented in Chapter Five. It shows the workings of power and the contingent nature of citizenship. Specifically the data was examined to search for words, phrases and statements with meanings that showed the limits of discourse at particular points in time. This examination of the data traced relations of power establishing concepts and themes within the discourse of Australian citizenship. The methodology described in this chapter traces the descent of discourse and the relations of power at specific points in time. The methodology was developed and refined during the course of the study. The application of the methodology confirmed the position, which was never explicitly stated by Foucault but suggested in his research, that citizens exist in relations of power. Therefore an analysis supportive of this principle has fostered a greater understanding of the workings of the discourse of citizenship. Foucault’s genealogy was used to explore the discourse and to question the rationality of the nature of citizenship. This has allowed for a nuanced analysis of contingencies rather than simply identifying a system of cause and effect in the development of Australian citizenship. The original focus of the research was to highlight social, political and economic inequalities in the discourse of Australian citizenship. However, the methodology identified above made this original focus a secondary consideration. This is discussed further in ‘6.2 The Methodological Dilemma’. The methodology produced a primary focus on the relations of power between whites and the Indigenous and in effect the study became primarily one regarding what is understood as ‘race relations’ within the discourse of citizenship. This was an unexpected outcome of the analysis of the data. I acknowledge that the enonce ‘race’ is a cultural construction and that its use could be considered a reproduction of systems of thought that have allowed racism to remain embedded in Australian society. This is not the intention of the research. The methodology is complex by nature and posits itself within Foucaultian systems of thought. Within this setting I acknowledge that the researcher is not neutral

93 and is also shaped by power/knowledge and biopolitics the very processes and practices that I have traced that are embedded in citizenship discourse. Following this section 4.1 Introduction, a description of the methodology is given in section 4.2. In section 4.3 the researcher and the choice of methodology is described. In section 4.4 a definition of the Foucaultian methodology utilised in the dissertation is given. In section 4.5 the process of ‘The Data Collection’ is explained. Section 4.6 explains the separation of the corpus. In section 4.7 the section entitled ‘Sourcing the data’ explains how the data was found and the search process. In 4.8 the criteria used for inclusion in the database is explained. In 4.9 the search process is explained. In section 4.10 ‘Procedures used to analyse the data’ are explained. In section 4.11 the research context or site is described. In section 4.12 ‘Data Analysis’ the specific techniques of discourse analysis is described while in section 4.13 a summary statement of the methodology concludes the chapter.

4.2 A description of the methodology in general terms As described in Chapter One, this thesis analyses how discursive formations in the print media have been used to produce, reproduce and transmit understandings of citizenship, and the beliefs and values of cultural, economic and political groups in society. It explains when the production, reproduction and transmission occurred and gives possible reasons as to how this knowledge or truth has changed, been transformed or been discontinuous. Importantly it shows that the production of citizens and citizenship is created through the constitutive nature of discourse at the discursive, social and political level. The general analysis sees these constructions of knowledge and truth as manifestations of power/knowledge. According to Wodak (2001) this form of power/knowledge is a product of a ‘historically developed familiarity’ or ‘an interpretative repertoire’ that establishes and ‘advances normative thinking and behaviour’ as ‘products of discourse’. The methodology in the dissertation has allowed for a complex and nuanced form of analysis that demonstrates that a discourse of Australian citizenship can be historicised or in the Foucaultian sense ‘genealogised’. The use of newspaper texts as data has been utilised by van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) in numerous studies over two

94 decades to show examples of the workings of what he called ‘micro-power’. His research focuses directly on racism and discrimination whereas my interests lay in the discursive experiences of citizenship. My study of newspaper texts show that seemingly benign forms of power/knowledge as evidenced in newspaper texts related to citizenship have a disciplining effect that shapes and produces subjectivity. This is explored extensively in Chapter Five. Smart (2002) has argued Foucault’s method of genealogy shows how power functions by demonstrating the precise moments particular mechanisms of power become economically and politically advantageous. This is evidenced in the thesis where the methodology allowed a mapping of specific language use which was able to demonstrate changes, transformations and discontinuity in systems of thought. This mapping is explored in Chapter Five. My understanding and analysis of the development of specific discourses and discursive frameworks related to citizenship took a number of years of reading, study and reflection. This understanding was developed through not only a close reading of Foucault (1971a; 1971b; 1971c; 1974; 1977; 1980; 1988a; 1988b; 1989; 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; 1991d; 1991e; 1998; 2001; 2002a; 2002b; 2006a; 2006b and 2007) but through a reading of a number of discourse analysts such as Fairclough (1995; 2001a; 2001b), van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) and Wodak (2001; 2004). Fairclough (1995; 2001a; 2001b), van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) and Wodak (2001; 2004) have their own interpretations of discourse analysis but all have made considerable contributions to understandings about the nature of discourse specifically related to language and power. They were utilised when the Foucaultian approach proved to be insufficient for the analysis of specific word use within the archive. As stated by Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), ‘… the perception of discourse (language but also other forms of semiosis, such as visual images) as an element of social practices, which constitutes other elements as well as being shaped by them. Social questions are therefore in part questions about discourse - for instance, the question of power in social class, gender and race relations is partly a question of discourse. And careful linguistic and semiotic analysis of texts (e.g. newspaper articles or

95 advertisements) and interactions (e.g. conversations or interviews) therefore has a part to play in social analysis’ (vii). This thesis employs a model of discourse analysis based on Foucault, but also complemented through a reading and study of the techniques of Fairclough (1995; 2001a; 2001b), van Dijk(1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004), Wodak (2001; 2004) and Wetherell and Potter (1992) whose research techniques are used to build further evidence on the workings of discourse and power. These analysts have utilised public or media discourse as represented in newspapers to demonstrate the constructive and constitutive nature of discursive formations and it is this foundation on which I have built my research questions and answers. This accumulation of thinking allowed me to analyse the data and the literature of citizenship with a degree of confidence. This understanding has allowed me to explain the changes and developments through a number of discursive procedures. The process of the production of citizenship as the object of discourse happens due to the acceptance, modification or resistance to words, statements or groups of statements related to the specific knowledge of citizenship. These are called ‘discursive formations’ in the general literature on discourse but Foucault (2002a) calls these types of statements ‘enonces’. Foucault (2002a) explains that the status and institutional setting of particular statements within discourse are known as ‘enunciative modalities’. This means that the statement or text has authority due to its institutional setting and also because of the perceived authority of the writer or speaker of the text which allows for a positioning of what can and cannot be said at particular points in time. Over time the ordering of these enunciative modalities creates concepts and the ordering of these concepts creates themes. The ordering of the enunciative modalities created five concepts related to: 1. White Australians 2. Indigenous Australians 3. Ethnic Australians 4. Poverty 5. Equality.

96 The ordering of these concepts were historicised and produced five discursive themes. They are: 1. The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969 2. Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980 3. Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988 4. Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996 5. The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007. The rules and regulations that position understandings of citizenship demonstrate the role of the relations of power in the formation of knowledge (Foucault 1980). As citizens act towards these relations of power their subjectivity is determined by processes of governmentality that discipline them to resist, modify or comply to manifestations of power/knowledge within the discourse of citizenship. This production of knowledge and its transmission through acceptance, modification or resistance over time allows for constructions of ‘normative’ thinking and behaviour (Foucault 1998). Normative thinking is a product of discourse (Foucault 1998; Wodak 2001). Normative thinking responds to changes in the discourse but also affects the discourse. As Wetherell and Potter (1992) argue discourse, ‘… distorts social reality, reflects economic and political structures, and also acts as a condition of existence shaping those structures’ (p. 13). It is for this reason that the discourse of citizenship is unstable and productive as analysed in the period 1946-2007. The methodology used in this research shows that discursive constructions of citizenship are designed as a foundation or a support for a range of beliefs and values on particular cultural, economic and political issues. The responses to these issues and crises promote relations of power centred on cultural, economic and political groups within Australia. The identification of cultural constructions of knowledge is important because they reinforce existing relations of power. Knowledge about white Australia, the Indigenous peoples, Ethnicity, poverty and equality as manifested in the media are evidence of power/knowledge. The methodology confirms Foucault’s (1991a) view that discourse is a conditioning effect which socially controls minds and bodies. Importantly it also confirms Foucault’s (1980) position that subjects also have the capacity to shape

97 the discourse. This view is indicated by the data from 1946-2007 which was collected from newspaper texts related to the five concepts of Australian citizenship. Foucault (1980) has argued that the analysis of power should proceed from the micro-level in order to reveal the strategies, tactics and techniques of power. The newspaper texts were chosen as a data source as they are an example of the micro-level of discourse. The Dutch researcher van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) has interrogated this micro-level of discourse since the mid 1980s and more recently the Australian researchers Manning (2004; 2006) and Walter and MacLeod (2002) have also used this micro-level as a source of data for their research. These cultural constructions of knowledge in newspaper texts, ‘… once exposed through research are of particular importance to the ‘mobilization of meaning’ and ‘the development of argumentative practice’ (van Dijk 1991:97). This mobilization of meaning and the development of argumentative practice have been noted by van Dijk (1991) in his research on racism and cultural constructions in media. He showed that discourse, language use and communication play a prominent part in this reproduction of an ethnic consensus by, what he calls, ‘whites’ and ‘white groups’. He calls for more detailed research into the promotion of inequality, particularly racism in the press which he states is a process involving the discovery of the, ‘… complexity of the textual, cognitive and socio-cultural processes involved … (which is) a serious analytical and theoretical challenge, but also a very rewarding way to bridge the gap that still exists between scholarship and society’ (1991: xi). The Foucaultian approach of the methodology as applied in this research assists in fulfilling van Dijk’s challenge to view the various micro-levels of, ‘… the actual expressions, manifestations and mechanisms of the reproduction of racism … (and discrimination), including the discursive, cognitive and interactional dimensions of ethnic group dominance’ (1991:5). This is done in order to expose relations of power so that power does not reconstitute itself into seemingly benign forms (Foucault 1971b) and to question the rationality of current practices (Foucault 1998). I argue through the use of this analysis that citizenship discourse shows in general terms that citizens do not simply produce discourse but significantly that discourse also

98 produces citizens. Consequently discourse is productive rather than simply being dominant. Further discussion of this is made in Chapter Five.

4.3 The researcher and the choice of methodology As part of the methodology outlined in this section I acknowledge that the study itself is a discursive practice that produces, reproduces and constitutes ideas, beliefs and values. The research spans a particular time period that is 1946-2007. As Burns (2000) has noted historical studies tend to be ‘idiosyncratic’ because of the individual subjectivities of the researcher and the nature of the topic. As van Dijk (1991) states, ‘(N)o research is free of norms and values or their implications. This is particularly true in the humanities and social sciences, where norms and values are themselves objects of analysis’ (p. 5). As stated in Chapter One my personal subjectivities have been shaped in part in a Foucaultian sense by the ‘games of truth’ that are a part of every society. A concern for the relation between individual interaction and the wider discursive and social structures that creates knowledge has made for a form of analysis which Mills (2004) has noted is complex and nuanced. Additionally I am aware of naively giving specific meanings to texts within my own claims of truth. The theorist Bourdieu (1990) has added to my understanding of constructions of knowledge and claims of truth through his research on the role of structure and agency within human practice. As stated in Chapter Two his theory of ‘habitus’ suggests that structure defines the meaning of acts of agency but at the same time agency reproduces and changes structures over time creating new knowledge. Bourdieu saw habitus as a product of history that produces individual and collective practices. He defined it as, ‘… objects of knowledge are constructed, not passively recorded, and … the principle of this construction is the system of structured, structuring dispositions, the habitus, which is constituted in practice and is always oriented towards practical functions’ (Bourdieu 1990:52). The methodology described in this chapter is metaphorically like shining many lights from different angles on the relations of power. If relations of power can be imagined as a number of three dimensional prison cells, the Foucaultian approach illuminates the prison cells from above, below, front, back, from the sides and from within, exposing these details to a far greater extent than if traditional historical methods

99 were used. This is because Foucault’s analyses were specifically designed to determine how individuals are made subjects of discourse through relations of power and how subjects could break free from the imprisonment of their thoughts. This approach allows for a greater unmasking of the workings of power. A famous saying by the French philosopher Gaston Bachelard (1884-1962) emphasises that, ‘every light casts shadows’. No research technique can dispel every shadow, from these ‘prison cells’ however the combination of these lights on the search for relations of power diminishes the effects of potential shadows and their reformation into what Foucault (1980) calls seemingly ‘benign forms of power’.

4.4 A definition of the Foucaultian methodology utilised in the dissertation The longitudinal research of data spread over 62 years uses methods derived from the historical research of Michel Foucault. This Foucaultian method is used to establish a genealogy of Australian citizenship through the identification of manifestations of power/knowledge. In this dissertation it is understood that the term ‘research methods’ means the types of selection, analysis and writing procedures that are used in the dissertation to provide evidence of the relationship of this study to prior studies, its contribution to the field through new ideas and the transmission of this new knowledge in the dissertation format. The term ‘Foucaultian methodology’ relates to the use of what Foucault (1994) called his ‘toolbox’ or research systems to form a cohesive Foucaultian research method. The methodology in this dissertation is necessary because Foucault did not develop a fully worked out, practiced and replicated single methodological position that utilised all aspects of his diverse research interests. Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge published in 1969 is the, ‘…only attempt at a systematic theoretical analysis’ of his research method (Rabinow, 1991:9). Foucault criticised the very notion of formulating one type of position such as Marxist ‘historical materialism’, which is centred on the idea that history is, ‘…. driven by a dialectic of conflict between social classes’ (Macey 2000: 241). Accordingly there is no ‘Foucaultian blue-print’ or template for dissertation research, hence the term Foucaultian methodology is used in the understanding that the research practice utilised is based on Foucault’s theories at different stages of his

100 academic career. However a theme of all his work is the relationship between power, knowledge and the construction of the subject. In Bernauer’s (1987) essay, ‘michel foucault’s ecstatic thinking’, he states that, ‘… there is a remarkable coherence to the achievement of a philosopher who was so wilfully anti-systematic. The key to that coherence … was a fundamental interrogation of his experience of thinking itself … at the source of his thought was the reality of imprisonment, the incarceration of human beings within modern systems of thought and practice which had become so intimately a part of them that they no longer experienced these systems as a series of confinements but embraced them as the very structure of being human’ (p.45). The relationship between power, knowledge and the construction of the subject is the focus for the research method utilised in this dissertation. Unlike other philosophers and historians who aim their research practice or ‘arrow’ at a stationary target, Foucault’s practice or his ‘arrow’ can be seen in terms of an archer aiming at a moving target while firing from a moving platform. This is because Foucault (1980) acknowledges that truth, even his own truth is unstable and dynamic. A recent Foucault historiographer, Eric Paras (2006) has called this peculiarity in Foucault’s historiography as the ‘pendulum’ of Foucaultian thought in that his historiography shows pendulum like swings in his philosophical enquiries from the 1960s to the 1980s. Paras (2006), also states that Foucault altered his position on subjectivity throughout his career. According to Paras (2006) Foucault acknowledged the possibility of subjectivity, then ‘killed off’ subjectivity and then in his last years, ‘… only the notion of strong subjectivity proved warm enough to accommodate an overwhelming passion for life and an indistinguishable belief in the primacy of human liberty’ (p.158). This demonstrates that Foucault used different techniques of thinking depending on the position of the ‘target’ or problem that was being examined. These different forms of thinking at some stages of his career can be seen as ‘structural’ whilst at other times his position can be seen as ‘poststructural’ despite Foucault’s (2006) discomfort with these labels. He is best understood as ‘a historian of systems of thought’, which was also his self-given title at the College of France from 1969 – 1984.

101 4.4.1 Archaeology and Genealogy as methodology In Foucault’s research the method of archaeology precedes genealogy and as such genealogy should be seen as an extension rather than a preclusion of archaeology. According to Smart (2002), ‘… archaeology did not disappear from Foucault’s analyses, it retained a secondary presence and continued to serve as a methodology for isolating and analysing ‘local discursivities’ in a manner which was complementary to genealogy’ (p.55). Smart also states (2002) that genealogy reveals, ‘…. the complexity, fragility, and contingency surrounding historical events’ (p.57) and adds to a growing understanding that nothing is stable in social relations. Further genealogy embraces, ‘… the confrontations, the conflicts and the systems of subjection which bring about new systems of rules which authorise and legitimate domination and resistance’ (Smart 2002:57). Macey (2000) confirms Smart’s position by stating that genealogy and archaeology are, ‘… complementary rather than mutually exclusive’ (p. 19). In this dissertation Foucault’s archaeology can be seen as the analysis of the system of unwritten rules which produces, organises and distributes the ‘statement’ authorised utterance or enunciative modality as it occurs in an archive or body of statements (Mills 2003). As stated in Chapter One archaeology is, ‘… a way of doing historical analysis of systems of thought or discourse’ (Smart 2002:48). Archaeology seeks to describe the archive. The archive is the term used by Foucault (2002b) to explain, ‘… the law of what can be said, the system that governs the appearance of statements as unique events’ (p.145). The archive, ‘… reveals the rules of a practice that enables statements both to survive and to undergo regular modification. It is the general system of the formation and transformation of statements’ (Foucault 1989c: 146). According to Mills (2003), ‘… an archive should be seen as the set of discursive mechanisms which limit what can be said, in what form and what is counted as worth knowing and remembering’. The analysis documented in this dissertation reveals the transformations within the archive describing what happened and the discursive conditions under which it was possible for these transformations and discontinuities to occur. The description of the archive can also be used to determine the episteme of an era. A claim could be made from this description that the episteme for the post-World

102 War Two era is centred on neo-liberalism. However further research would need to be conducted to add weight to such a claim as it is outside the perimeters of this study. Foucault’s genealogy is a type of historical research that adds to archaeology by tracing the descent of discourse and the emergence or manifestation of its characteristic trait of power/knowledge. It allows for a concentration on accidents and chance events, rather than cause and effect and sees knowledge and power as interwoven and inseparable in shaping and producing subjects. By tracing the descent of discourse genealogy produces a social and political history of truth. The methodology allowed firstly for the establishment and description of the archive. From the analysis of the archive a genealogy was formulated. The methodology demonstrates the manifestations of power/knowledge, the transformations of ideas in the form of local and national discursivities. In this way archaeological analysis describes the transformations of citizenship and the genealogy describes the relations of power as a social and political history of truth. By using genealogy the thesis illuminates and explains how and when constructions of citizenship have been changed and what can and cannot be said, thought or done at specific times in the discourse.

4.5 The collection of the data Before commencing the collection of the data an extensive literature review was conducted on the topic of citizenship, citizens and subjectivity. I created a database of authors, texts, dates of publication, the site of the publication and the publisher and suitable quotes. The database of information from the literature review was recorded and organised using the software ‘Endnote 5’. This review of the literature continued while I analysed the data and also continued during the final stages of the completion of the thesis. The data collection for this dissertation was done through a systematic process based on the analysis of the archive. The archive revealed the enonces and enunciative modalities, concepts and themes within the discourse of citizenship. The methodology used newspaper texts published from 1946-2007 as historical records of Australian society and culture that contained evidence of the manifestations of the public discourse of citizenship. These newspapers were viewed on micro film using the sample date of

103 January 26 for every year from 1946-2007 inclusive at the NSW State Library in Sydney and at the UTS Library Ku-ring-gai Campus. The date January 26 was chosen because it commemorates ‘Australia Day’ which had been commemorated on this day in NSW from 1946 and nationally from 1991. This means that the records available on that date have tended to encourage discursive texts that report on the nature of Australian society and individuals based on collective understandings of ‘Australia Day’ and its wider significance to Australians. Relevant material was photocopied from every edition published on January 26 from 1946-2007 and recorded and analysed in chronological sequence. Texts of significance from January 27 were used where reports were made regarding events from the previous day. In terms of the data collected, relevant material was deemed to be any text from the newspaper published on January 26 or January 27 from 1946-2007 that dealt with Australian citizenship from the broad thematic and conceptual perspectives and portrayals of whites, migrants and Indigenous peoples. Additionally perceptions of poverty and equality were also recorded. This broad overview of citizenship texts allowed for a large corpus of data to be collected for the current study. The data was collected and analysed from early 2005. The data was placed within the database using a table format as displayed in Chapter Five: Results at the beginning of 2006 with the 2007 edition being added in February 2007.

4.6 Separation of the corpus Foucault defines the meaning of the ‘corpus’ in terms of its relationship with the archive. Foucault (2002b) states, ‘(B)etween the language (langue) that defines the system of constructing possible sentences, and the corpus that passively collects the words that are spoken, the archive defines a particular level: that of a practice that causes a multiplicity of statements to emerge as so many regular events, as so many things to be dealt with and manipulated’ (p. 146). Firstly I used a table format described below and separated the corpus into individual years starting with 1946 and ending with 2007 then divided the data into the following entries; • Date: to position the data to allow comparison from year to year. The discourse genre was then coded as;

104 • Front page headline: to contextualise the discourse in relation to what was considered to be the most important news of the day and to determine whether it related to Australian citizenship • Editorial and page reference to show whether editorial interest in the broad topic of citizenship was mentioned. • Letters to the editor to note what letters had been published that relate to citizenship The dominant and minority actors and perspectives as discussed within the text were then coded as the: • ‘White’ perspective to show how the dominant group dealt with the historical reality of colonisation/invasion and self image as ‘egalitarian’ • ‘Indigenous’ perspective to show how the dispossessed group dealt with the historical reality of colonisation/invasion and to document how whites viewed Indigenous peoples. • Ethnic perspective to show how minority groups dealt with the historical reality of colonisation/invasion and to show how whites understood non-white immigrants • ‘Poverty – equality’ perspective to show whether a fundamental principle of the dominant group i.e. egalitarianism was dealt with on that day The discourse genre was then additionally coded by: • Significance of editorial to show changes to previously authorised and legitimised positions in relation to inequality, Indigeneity, white or ethnic positions. • Additional articles and annotated photographs related to Australia Day and their page references that did not fit the above coding of the corpus but nevertheless offered up additional information for analysis. This method allowed for the establishment of a citizenship archive from 1946-2007 based on the data present in the source material.

4.7 Criteria for inclusion in the database To satisfy the criteria for inclusion into the database the news articles, editorials, opinion pieces, letters to the editors and annotated photographs from the sample date needed to make reference explicitly to an aspect of either social, cultural, political or economic

105 characteristics or conditions within Australia that related to citizenship the five identified concepts. These characteristics included ‘Australians’ of white descent who are identified in the data either through explicit reference or through presumption as ‘white’ Australians or simply as ‘Australians’. The criteria included any reference to people not of white descent and who were also non-Indigenous. These people are identified in the data as part of immigrant or migrant Australia. The criteria also included anyone identified as Aboriginal Australian or Indigenous. The final criterion for inclusion within the database was any person, event or information that was related to issues of equality and poverty. As these were the dominant themes of the texts from 1946-2007 they were analysed to trace the descent of discourse.

4.8 The search process The newspapers were read from the microform screen and were interrogated for information related to the study. The instruments used for this study were microfilm viewers with photocopier capability located in the University of Technology libraries at Broadway and Ku-ring-gai and at the New South Wales State Library in Macquarie St. Sydney. Materials used in this study consisted of newspapers published on Australia Day (i.e. January 26) and the following day where there was evidence of commentary from the previous day’s events. As part of the process I then photocopied these microfilm newspapers for future analysis. The viewed materials both on screen and in photocopied form were reliable and valid for the purposes of the research. The analysed data that fitted the established criteria for inclusion within the database of source material was then photocopied for further reading and deeper analysis off-site and possible future inclusion in the archive. Upon viewing the photocopied material, a determination was made upon the closer inspection of the source material to ‘sort and sift’ the pages for inclusion or exclusion within the study based on the reading of the printed material. This process of reading the photocopied pages was completed for each year from 1946 – 2007. The newspaper for the source material, The Sydney Morning Herald is published from Monday to Saturday. Where 26 January fell on a Sunday potential source material would have been absent from the study. Consequently, on six occasions within the

106 designated time period for the study, The Sun Herald, a tabloid form of The Sydney Morning Herald published only on Sundays was used for the research sample to allow for continuity of data. I acknowledge that some may view this as a corruption or inconsistency of the data because the source was broken and replaced by a tabloid form of the broadsheet. However, as both are published by the same publisher I believe that they both still have and had in the past, the same political, economic and social discursive framework. Once photocopied and collated, the source material was viewed chronologically from 1946 – 2007. Source material that fell into the set criteria was then placed within the database on a year-by-year basis. The database was created using a table format listing: • date of the newspaper • front page headline to assist with contextualisation of the source material • editorial (with page reference) • letters to the editor (with page reference) • White Australian perspective within the source material • Indigenous perspective within the source material • Immigrant perspective within the source material • Poverty perspective or equality perspective within the source material • Significance of editorial within the source material • Any additional texts related to ‘Australia Day’

4.9 Procedures used to analyse the data In carrying out the research design, several procedures were used. To be included in the study, the datum needed to be related to Australian citizens, or the attitudes, beliefs and values of Australian citizens as expressed in the source material. In a Foucaultian sense this is called the ‘object’ of the study. This relationship to citizenry was deemed to exist if an enonce or enunciative modality was identified. These can be explained as statements, groups of statements or specific ‘trigger’ words that come from an authorised voice, institutional setting or observation related to the discourse of citizenship. An example of a specific enunciative modality was ‘(W)e will decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they come’ by the Prime Minister John Howard in

107 October 2003 which was made in response to ‘illegal immigration’ during the lead-up to the election of that year. This was used from this time as a political and social philosophy to justify exclusionary practices. The trigger words, phrases or statements directly relate to the three underlying concepts of race being ‘White’, ‘Indigenous’ or ‘immigrant’ and the additional concepts of ‘social worthiness’ being poverty and equality/egalitarianism. These specific words or phrases were separated into unifying concepts included the following: aboriginal, Aboriginal, aborigine, Aborigine, asylum seeker, refugee, illegal immigrant, boat people, citizen, subject, Australia, Australian, Australians, Australia Day, Aussie, Australian values, Britain, British migrant, migration, immigration, multicultural, un- Australian, cultural, culture, colonisation, invasion, caste, half-caste, quadroon, mission, reserves, equity, New Australian, wog, wop, anglo, Anglo, white, White, black, Black, yellow, Yellow, yellow peril, Asia, Asians, horde, hordes, jap., Jap, Japanese, Chink, chink, Chinese, poor, poverty, egalitarian, egalitarianism, equality, inequality, unequal, fair go, indigenous, Indigenous, White Australia, White Australians, Immigration Policy, White Australia Policy, dispossession, segregation, assimilation, heritage, Muslim, Muslims, nation, race, racism, racist, racial, value, values. Once a source within a sample year satisfied this basic criterion of a relationship to Australian citizens the datum was then siphoned into one of five concepts: 1. White Australia 2. Indigenous Australia 3. Ethnic Australia 4. poverty 5. equality These five concepts or perspectives relate to the three cultural groupings in Australia: white, Indigenous, non-white migrants with the additional perspectives of poverty and equality. The sources were then able to be interrogated to determine whether the knowledge within the source of white, Indigenous, migrants, poverty and equality were embedded understandings or whether they were dynamic. These five key concepts were found to provide rich sources of data for the study and established a typology of citizenship for the study.

108 The division through the study into five discursive themes was established to reflect the historical nature of Australia Day which references the colonisation/invasion of Australia by the British, the dispossession and segregation of Indigenous Australians, the growing importance of migration to the post-World War Two development of Australia and recent perceptions of growing inequality in Australia.

4.10 The research context or site The context of the research was Australian citizenship viewed over time using newspaper articles sourced from The Sydney Morning Herald and its tabloid form published on Sundays The Sun Herald from 1946-2007. As a primary source with also a mix of and secondary sources, newspapers are ‘intentional’ documents created specifically for public consumption and contain clear examples of editorial and journalistic bias. However, this does not mean that they are invalid and unreliable samples for the purposes of research. Rather, by focusing on the discursive practices of the archive itself the newspapers create a trace of social practices encompassed in the language of the time and demonstrate relations of power within a specific social setting. As Fairclough (1995:76) states it is not necessary to prove all the claims to truth that are made within a text but to ascertain the social impact of a text by asking the question: Which group in society is likely to gain from the opinions expressed in the text? In this sense the selected newspaper texts are manifestations of the discourse of citizenship. The newspaper chosen as the site of the study, The Sydney Morning Herald, was first published in 183143 in Sydney and since that time has maintained a position within the daily culture of Sydney and New South Wales as the pre-eminent broadsheet and in some respects is modelled on London’s The Times and more recently the New York Times in its promotion of quality accurate and honest investigative journalism (Souter 1981). The first edition of The Sydney Morning Herald in 1831 stated, ‘(W)hile we are bound to respect Government and its measures, we are entitled to be independent in thought and speech … we shall neither fear nor refuse to state our sentiments.’ In his history of The Sydney Morning Herald Souter (1981) states its historical desire for independent thinking with, ‘(I)n that sense, and in the sense that it strove to report events accurately and

43 Originally The Sydney Herald. In 1842 it became The Sydney Morning Herald.

109 honestly … the Herald followed its own advice faithfully for 150 years. There were few newspapers in the world that could say as much’ (p. 588). The intention of the SMH is to report on events of interest both local and global for its readers. Through providing this information its effect is that it assists in shaping the views of ‘Sydneysiders’ and has done so for generations either through acceptance, modification or resistance. Through providing information in the reporting of political, social, cultural and economic conditions it also presents differing ideological positions. As such it is a site for the manifestation of power/knowledge. Ideology can be seen as representations of the way things are that best suits the dominant group, elites or institutions (Althusser 1971). Thus through the use of investigative reporting on events, issues and controversies the SMH becomes a vehicle for a number of ideologies that promote democracy, capitalism and politics. These compete within the discourse of citizenship and manifest themselves as power/knowledge or disciplinary factors that shape subjectivity. This competition is a contest of wills or a battle to establish or maintain a truth. The practices of citizenship as reported by the SMH contain the traces of this discourse or its genealogy and its characteristic form of power/knowledge. This research then is the history of truth of Australian citizenship as understood within one medium. It is a past not simply of actualities or totalities but a genealogy that shows the limits of discourse at a particular time and place in relation to Australian citizenship. It is these discursive formations the constructions of citizenship that are the site of the study from 1946 – 2007. The research site, The Sydney Morning Herald has also occupied the same cultural space within Sydney and New South Wales over that time and has a socio-cultural lineage that allows for substantive interrogation. Having maintained the same social and cultural space over this time, for Sydneysiders it is unique as a newspaper because it has had continuous publication and wide readership. Through this research I have attempted to bring to life the archive of January 26 over 62 years to demonstrate the micro-techniques of power in not only the representation but the formation of citizenship identities. It is for these reasons that the newspaper was chosen as the vehicle for examination.

110 4.11 Data Analysis The data was analysed using Foucault’s genealogy and as a secondary presence archaeology which are described in detail in 4.4.1 above. The study resulted in the collection of a mass of raw data. This data consisted of photocopied texts from newspapers published on 26 January from 1946-2007 with additional texts used on January 27 that reported on the events of the previous day. Over 500 texts were gathered in the initial data collection. After subsequent readings these were then divided into year groups and then into the concepts and themes based on the enunciative modalities and enonces mentioned in 4.10 above. At this initial stage the methodology allowed for the data to be reduced in a systematic analysis. This was done by reading the text for a relationship with one or more of the identified key concepts. The words and statements which contained manifestations of power/knowledge within the text were then identified. As language use changed over the sixty two years of analysis new words were added to the database that related to the key concepts. For example the enunciative modality of ‘illegal migrant’ emerged in the data in 1974. It was replaced with the enonce of ‘refugee’ in 1990 and with ‘asylum seeker’ and ‘illegal immigrants’ in 2002. As such the trigger list of words that first appeared in the database had a number of additions based on further readings of the data. This suggests a change in normative thinking as ‘asylum seekers’ were no longer refugees looking for a safe haven in a new country but that they were illegal immigrants who were breaking ‘our laws’ and were a threat to Australian security. At its simplest this change suggests that rather than being someone ‘we’ should help, ‘they’ are people to be feared. This technique was used with every text identified as having a correlation with one of the five concepts for every year of the study. This exposing of the limits of discourse was done to establish the relations of power within and between groups. By tracking this through the 62 years I genealogised these relations of power to their characteristic form of power/knowledge. The texts were then discursively analysed by considering the relations of power that were represented in the text. These relations of power were considered by establishing from which conceptual position the text was written. A determination was made as to which concept the text was written about. This was done by analysing the

111 specific words and statements in the text, the context in which they were used and who was saying or being reported to say these words. By grouping all the texts from one particular year within a table format I then theorised the limits of citizenship discourse by establishing what could or could not be said about a particular issue, event or group based on the available data. The ordering of these concepts then allowed me to map the themes of the discourse into five periods where the main them was prominent during a particular time period over the 62 years. I was then able to create visuals of these relations of power through further tables of data sets and their graphs which showed the peaks and valleys of particular citizenship concerns based on this Foucaultian method. For instance based on the method of graph use a peak of activity related to Aboriginal reconciliation occurs in the year 1988. Nearly twenty years after this discursive event no such interest reappeared in the data. These are reproduced in Chapter Five and in the Appendices which follow Chapter Six. The data from the mid 1970s began to show elements of what I labelled ‘enterprise citizenship’. This allowed me to formulate specific questions in relation to this new form of citizenship that began appearing at this time. Key focus questions that arose from the analysis included the following: • What inclusive and exclusionary practices create enterprise citizenship – social, economic and political? • How has the development of enterprise citizenship formed new relations of power and knowledge within Australia? • If citizenship is a right who has access to these rights as enterprise citizens? How does a citizen become an enterprise citizen? • Which strategy of power defines enterprise citizenship? • Do individuals recognise practices of enterprise citizenship? • To whom does this form of citizenship benefit? The data findings were discussed in a qualitative manner with each text within a specific year reported on based on the above procedures. I then quantified this analysis through a process of determining the number of times references were made to specific

112 racial or cultural groups within texts for each year of analysis44. I then transferred the data and used a spreadsheet program to graph the findings. This was done for a number of reasons. Firstly, the quantification of the data allows for a reproducibility of the study to occur. This is important as I am expressing an imagined reality numerically which I then graphed to create a visual representation of the data. This shows the presentation of the results from a number of formats again ‘to caste light on the many houses of power/knowledge from various angles’. Secondly, through the use of numbers and graphs I have organised the data in a form that allows qualitative data to be expressed using standard procedures of quantitative reporting. This approach allows the reader to view and interpret the analysis not only from a qualitative perspective but also from a quantitative perspective. These can be viewed in the Appendices.

4.12 A summary statement of the methodology This chapter has explained the methods used within the dissertation. It describes the theories of archaeology and genealogy as the methodology of the dissertation. This methodology was used to trace the descent of the discourse of citizenship as represented in Australia Day editions (i.e. January 26) of The Sydney Morning Herald from 1946- 2007. The methods were used to locate and analyse manifestations of power/knowledge and its role in the formation of subjectivity. Having established the archive by determining what could and could not be said in a set period or situation I then analysed the data to reveal a genealogy of citizenship discourse through a tracing of the manifestations of power/knowledge. This was done with the intention of demonstrating systems of truth or the games of truth with modalities of power. This analysis sees discourse as constructing cultural understandings within a number of themes of citizenship from 1946-2007. These themes were: 1. The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969 2. Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980 3. Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988

44 These were placed in a table format, totalling 25,000 words, and were to be available in the Appendices however I have removed them due to a need to keep the thesis within a reasonable limit of 91,000 words. The tabular form has been saved for future use for secondary history teachers. Chapter Five has the same information in an expanded form to allow for a greater discussion of the implications of the analysis.

113 4. Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996 5. The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007. The methodology of discourse analysis based on archaeology and genealogy shows in general terms that citizens do not simply produce discourse but significantly that discourse produces citizens. Consequently discourse is productive rather than simply be seen as dominant. Specifically, the discourse analysis shows that a genealogy exists based on the analysed texts and that power/knowledge is a force that creates acceptance, modification or resistance to particular enunciative modalities, concepts and themes within the discourse of Australian citizenship. As a result, this acceptance, modification or resistance can be understood as additional evidence of the workings of governmentality. This response to the discourse constructs citizens to think and act in ways that comply, modify or resist discursive formations. In summary the application of the methodology confirmed the position that citizens exist in relations of power. As a genealogy the methodology also provided evidence of the construction of a type of normative thought, speech and action that promoted enterprise citizenship within the broader social, economic and political governing system of neo-liberalism. Significantly the methodology produced a new direction in the study from its original emphasis on knowledge of and actions towards equality of opportunity in Australia to highlight race relations and the plight of the Indigenous in Australia in this time period. This is discussed extensively in Chapter Five and Six below.

114 Chapter Five: The summary and discussion of the genealogy of Australian citizenship

‘The longer I continue, the more it seems to me that the formation of discourses and the genealogy of knowledge need to be analysed, not in terms of types of consciousness, modes of perception and forms of ideology, but in terms of tactics and strategies of power’ Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, 1980:77.

To assist the reader, this chapter of the dissertation restates the research problem and reviews the major methods used in the study. The major sections of this chapter summarise the results and discuss their implications.

5.1 Statement of the problem Having been introduced to Australia shortly after World War Two citizenship has grown in social, political and economic importance. From the end of World War Two the citizen’s relationship with the state began to shift as new competition for employment, and new cultural and religious practices took hold in the globalised and transformed world. These changes created tensions between traditional practices and imported global practices which provided fertile territory for social, cultural and political expression to take hold. From the early 1980s the full effects of globalisation began to impact on the daily lives of citizens. This is evidenced in the global attention directed towards the living condition of Indigenous groups and individuals that led-up to Australia’s ‘Bicentenary’ in 1988. The global movement of people, in the form of official and unofficial45 migration, finance in the form of foreign investment and information in the form of access to local and foreign media from this time greatly impacted on the lives of Australian citizens. Through the application of a Foucaultian methodology the dissertation attempts to answer the problem statement as to how a genealogy produces certain understandings of Australian citizenship and its characteristic form of power/knowledge when manifested

45 An example of the unofficial global movement of people was the first wave of refugees, approximately 65,000 Vietnamese, known as ‘boat people’ who arrived in Australia from 1975 – 1982 and secondly the 12,000 Middle Eastern ‘boat people’ who arrived in Australia as ‘illegal refugees’ particularly from 1999 – 2002 (O’Neill 2008).

115 discursively in print media texts published on January 26 (Australia Day) from 1946 – 2007. By showing the form of power/knowledge through the application of a Foucaultian analytic I am applying Foucault’s methods to view citizenship as a discourse. A discourse is a site where power and knowledge are joined together (Foucault 1998). The discourse creates structures that allow shared ways of communicating and putting into practice meanings that characterise particular sites at specific times (Gubrium and Holstein 1997). Foucault (2002a) states discourses are significant because as practices they, ‘…systematically form the objects of which they speak’ (p. 54). In understanding citizenship as a discourse, the formation of knowledge and ‘truth’ of Australian citizenship can be viewed as a cultural construction. These constructions, if left unchallenged, reinforce existing relations of power which perpetuate discrimination in all its forms. By re-thinking and re-imagining knowledge as a cultural construction the rationality of current practices can be thoroughly questioned. Foucault (1998) called this practice ‘effective history’. According to Thomas Flynn (1987), Foucault’s research implies, ‘… the triadic relationship of power, knowledge and subjectivation (self constitution) is essential to any properly philosophical analysis…’ (p.115). The analysis of discourse and a re-thinking of citizenship allows for a greater understanding of how the individual or subject is ‘formed’ through discursive systems and also how the subject shapes discourse. Foucault’s methods have been applied to the data to determine whether his knowledge can help explain the many changes to citizenship through the interplay of contingent factors that have occurred from 1946 – 2007. The application of the methodology also allows for a questioning of the ways in which groups and individuals attempt to dominate the discourse to shape and condition it to their beliefs and values.

5.2 Review of the methodology As explained in Chapter 4, the study reported here analysed texts on Australian citizenship as published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 January, known as ‘Australia Day’, from 1946 – 2007. The methodology was developed using my reading and study of Foucault (1971a; 1971b; 1971c; 1974; 1977; 1980; 1988a; 1988b; 1989; 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; 1991d; 1991e; 1998; 2001; 2002a; 2002b; 2006a; 2006b and

116 2007). Further reading of a number of discourse analysts who focussed on specific language use in media texts such as Fairclough (1995; 2001a; 2001b), van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) and Wodak (2001; 2004) was utilised as their studies offered additional insights into the analysis of discourse. Foucault’s genealogy and the supplementary method of archaeology formed the basis of the analysis to trace the descent of discourse in newspaper texts. The analysis focussed on the discourse of citizenship as represented by texts that matched specified criteria. The criteria were developed after reading through every text published on January 26 from 1946-2007 in The Sydney Morning Herald and the corpus of literature on Australian and international citizenship. The criteria for inclusion in the study were based on specific discursive language that represented the theme of citizenship and its concepts and specific statements and words that defined the limits of the discourse. Foucault (2002a) called these enonces and enunciative modalities46. The enonces and enunciative modalities were selected for analysis because they represented the major concerns expressed about Australian citizenship on the published date over the period. These concepts and specific words and statements were based on relations of power between ‘racial’, cultural and economic groupings of individuals and communities. Through the application of the methodology these concerns came into sharp focus and were evident throughout the period studied. The study focussed on understandings of ‘race’, culture and poverty/equality through the tracing of the discursive language of citizenship published in the newspapers which were the primary source documents. The texts chosen for analysis from the Australia Day editions focussed on citizens and citizenship as understood on the specific date overtime within the discourse. This knowledge included understandings of ‘race relations’, poverty and the dismantling of egalitarianism and the role of social, economic and political groups in shaping normative thought. As a genealogy the texts published on this day were traced over the specified time period to ascertain the changing nature of the discourse. The study focussed on the analysis of specific words, statements and groups of statements that were evidence of

46 For a detailed description of the function of enunciative modalities see Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, pp. 99 – 118.

117 relations of power through the application of the Foucaultian methods of genealogy and archaeology. This analysis of the texts provided a genealogy of the knowledge of citizenship by determining the permissions and prohibitions within the discourse of citizenship. Through the application of the methodology I sought to determine what words and statements could and could not be said, thought or expressed about citizenship at particular times. Using this method a discontinuity was identified during the 1980s. Additionally the analysis showed the importance of the interplay of contingent factors in determining how, when and why the prohibitions and permissions changed over time. The application of the methodology demonstrated there was evidence to suggest that understandings of citizenship were culturally constructed and in many respects conformed to Foucault’s philosophical and historical studies about the nature of knowledge and the workings of power. Through the analysis of the discourse the study traced the production and transmission of the knowledge of citizenship within the primary source over the time period to provide a possible explanation for changes to collective imaginings of citizenship and changes to subjectivity. This analysis created a genealogy to show ‘a history of the present’ and positions citizenship as a discourse. Imagining citizenship in this way allowed me to produce a new knowledge about citizenship and to re-fashion citizenship not as a result of historical inevitabilities but as a manifestation of normative thought and action.

5.3 Summary of the results The study shows the evidence of the changing forms of the manifestations of power/knowledge throughout the period studied. It also shows that despite deep discursive structures that limit what is possible to be done, spoken, thought or written there was evidence of ruptures to these structures through individuals being ‘the vehicles of power’. For instance in 1946, the first year of the study, the idea of Aboriginal ownership of the land is sanctioned by a member of the clergy. This discursive formation does not re-emerge again until the 1960s and from this time eventually becomes embedded in the discourse. Despite this embedding there is still resistance to this change in systems of thought. There are other examples of discursive formations emerging and

118 then disappearing from the discourse. The use of the enonce ‘half-caste’ and ‘quadroon’ and of ‘breeding out’ of Aboriginality through breeding with whites appears in 1949 with the enonce ‘full-blood Aboriginal’ from 1970 being the last example of this form of normative thinking in the discourse. Australian citizenship has grown in political and social importance since the late 1940s as evidenced through the public discourse of citizenship as published in the specific print media. Citizenship in Australia continues to undergo change in response to social, political, economic and cultural forces aligned with globalisation. The responses to these shifts in meaning and knowledge are inherently productive as citizens attempt to comply with the competing agendas of Australian citizenship. In this discursive environment citizenship is made unstable and citizens can possibly become unequal. Within the discourse of citizenship new experiences of citizenship and types of citizens emerge. One such example from the archive I labelled, ‘enterprise citizenship’. This experience of citizenship demonstrates the effects of neo-liberalism on current practices as citizens’ responsibilities to the state increase. The discourse on ‘the citizen’ in Australian society shows a growing and complex inequality particularly between discursive formations of culture, poverty and prosperity.

5.3.1 The major products of the research Throughout the period of the study, the genealogy of Australian citizenship and its characteristic form of power/knowledge was evident in the texts. This power/knowledge was expressed within the discourse where discursive language, statements and concepts related to the theme of citizenship. These enonces and enunciative modalities carried the traces of specific social and political constructions of citizenship. The major products of the study through the application of the methodology are summarised below.

1. Foucaultian understandings about discourses in general and power/knowledge in particular can be applied to the area of citizenship to investigate its problematisation. The manifestation of power/knowledge in the discourse is further evidence that citizens exist in relations of power. These manifestations

119 produced five distinct discursive periods47. I labelled them as, ‘The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969, Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980, Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988, Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996, The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’. In particular the period ‘Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988’ manifests the discursive discontinuity, first sited in the archive in 1983 that permits Aboriginal Australians to criticise their treatment by whites. This was the first example of this ‘permission’, and from this time it is embedded in the archive48. A discursive timeline of Australian Citizenship with manifestations of power/knowledge was produced from the study which provides further evidence that citizens exist in relations of power.

2. The study reaffirms the view (Marshall 1949; Habermas 1989; Galligan and Roberts 2004) that citizenship is an important social structure that normatively provides all citizens with legal, political and social frameworks to conduct relationships based on a commonality of rights and responsibilities with certainty between themselves, with organisations, institutions and governments. The miracle of multiculturalism, the transformation of Australia in the space of a generation from a society that promoted white supremacy and silence on Aboriginal history to a multi-cultural society that is now attempting to include Indigenous peoples and migrant communities is further evidence of the transformative nature of discourse. Despite this the discourse of citizenship is a site for the production, reproduction and transmission of racism and discrimination while also being a site of resistance to these discursive forces.

47 I have labelled these ‘discursive periods’ as opposed to ‘historical periods’ as they are formed by discursive events rather than social, political or economic events. Examples of discursive events from the archive are listed under the Australian citizenship discursive timeline on p. 205-207 of this thesis. 48 In 1938 the first and most famous example of this occurred on 26 January 1938 where a ‘Day of Mourning’ was proclaimed by Aboriginal leaders in Sydney over their treatment by whites during the 150 years of white rule. As stated above this permission to criticise whites did not become embedded in the discourse until the early 1980s.

120 3. There was evidence in the discourse of the emergence of ‘enterprise citizenship’ in the discourse as a form of citizenship experience which emphasises the responsibilities of citizens to the state in ensuring their own prosperity. This is an important product of the research as it provides evidence of erosion in the significance of Marshall’s (1949) ‘social citizenship’.

5. 4 Discussion of the results Interpretation of the products of the analysis This section, ‘Interpretation of the products of the analysis’ is presented chronologically, commencing in 1946 and concluding in 2007. The findings from each year are presented and links with previous research and published findings are given. Where findings are not consistent with past research possible explanations are specified. I have divided this chapter into five parts that reflect the five major periods and focus areas I identified in citizenship discourse based on the application of the methodology discussed in Chapter Four. To assist the reader only the most significant articles from each year are discussed in this chapter. Additional articles from specific years are discussed in the Appendices.

5.4.1 The silencing of Aboriginal Affairs 1946 - 1969 In this first period from 1946 – 1969, the tactic of silence regarding Aboriginal affairs was evident in the archive. The tactic of silence attempted to control normative thinking and behaviour by whites towards Aboriginal people. The significant text in the 1946 Australia Day edition is a letter ‘Aborigines Case Recognition by the Churches’ (p2) to the editor by D. A. Hickin the Editorial Secretary National Missionary Council of Australia Sydney. Hickin draws the readers’ attention to the continuing ‘crisis’ with the treatment of Aborigines by whites. Although it is a letter to the editor ‘Aborigines Case Recognition by the Churches’ was placed with the other three editorial pieces and was not placed under the heading ‘Letters to the Editor’. The letter appears to be part of the editorial opinion of The Sydney Morning Herald. The editor has given the letter special significance placing it within the editorial opinion pieces on ‘Cricket’, the ‘Brick Crisis’, and ‘The UN’ as ‘Aborigines Case’ relates directly to Australia Day. This relationship is demonstrated in ‘Aborigines Case’ by the

121 enunciative modality of ‘… the annual celebration of Australia Day’ with the concept of nation’s responsibility to its Indigenous population. This ‘celebration of Australia Day’ is juxtaposed then by the writer with the phrase, ‘… from whom possession of the land was taken when the first white men came to plant civilisation in this continent.’ According to the writer it had become customary for the Churches to recognise the annual celebration of Australia Day as an opportunity to consider the nation’s responsibility to the Indigenous from whom possession of the land was taken and hence this letter reflected according to the writer that social norm. In this text the Church is seen as the source of authority on Indigenous affairs. Hickin continued with, ‘… “the aboriginal problem” has become to discerning Australians one of the major human questions for consideration’. Hickin acknowledges that, ‘Men and women have risen from among these dark-skinned tribes to become leaders of their people…’ The writer uses this to disprove the commonly held view that, ‘… the aborigines are incapable of intelligent progress and must inevitably go to the wall.’ This comment reflects contemporaneous systems of thought that Aboriginal Australians would eventually die-out49. In the body of the text of ‘Aborigines Case Recognition by the Churches’ the word ‘Aboriginal’ is not capitalised suggesting that Aboriginals are not equal to other members of the Australian community. This letter attempts to place the Churches at the forefront of improving the lives of Aboriginals. However the letter acknowledges that even within the churches’ missionary work, ‘… the aboriginal is usually the cinderella of the programme.’ The writer states that, ‘… aboriginals are being allowed to die in neglect. Governments can do very little until the conscience of the people is aroused.’ Hickin sees it as a responsibility of the Churches to raise the profile of the dire straits the Indigenous were placed in through the policy of neglect by white Australians. By doing so the implication

49 This belief was promoted, transmitted and accepted as a truth by the Australian people and codified via the ‘Constitution of Australia’. The constitution was conceived and written in the late 1890s with its being passed into legislation by the British Parliament in July 1900. With this legislative event the nation of Australia was proclaimed on January 1 1901. This document did not allow the Commonwealth Government to make laws for Aboriginals, only the six states had legislative authority to create laws for Aboriginals. Up until May 1967, Commonwealth power could not be used to make laws for Aboriginals living in the six states as under the provisions of the constitution only the six federated states of Australia could make laws for Aboriginal Australians. Commonwealth power could not be used at this time, 1946, as the Australian Constitution, in sections 51 and 127 did not recognise that the Commonwealth Government had a role to play in Aboriginal affairs and excluded Aborigines from classification as subjects. This classification was left to the states and territories. Until May 1967 Aboriginals in the state of New South Wales were classified as ‘subjects of NSW’ under the Flora and Fauna Act.

122 is that through the democratic process of political pressure led by the Churches this will force politicians to act and use their power to improve the plight of the ‘aborigine’. Studies by Foucault (1980; 1988a; 1991a; 1998) indicate that for a truth to be accepted, relations of power as the conduit in the production and circulation of knowledge needs to be dispersed throughout society. This is evidenced in this edition through the use of quotes by authorities, the implicit role of the Australian Constitution as a founding document and the institutionalisation of beliefs and values within society that produce and reproduce knowledge but also allow resistance. This resistance in the form of Hickin’s comments, attempts to negate commonly held views that ‘the aborigines are incapable of intelligent progress and must inevitably go to the wall’. According to Foucault (1980) this struggle to establish new understandings is one part of the political economy of truth which is a process through which societies construct truth. The term ‘aborigine’ in this text is used in the lower case in this and subsequent texts on the Indigenous until 1955. The lower case ‘a’ re-emerges after this time but is subjugated from the 1969. The use of the lower case ‘a’ suggests that Aboriginal Australians are not equal to whites. From the 1969 the upper case ‘A’ for ‘Aborigine’ is utilised. This suggests that normative thinking has changed regarding the equality of Aborigines with whites. Its effect is to humanise representations of Aboriginal Australians by placing them discursively equal to other Australians. The 1947 editorial deals with three topics, the union movement on the waterfront, an explanation as to why meat is scarce, and Australia Day. Of significance to this research is the editorial piece on ‘Australia Day’. There are no other texts related to citizenship in this edition. ‘Australia Day’ states that, ‘Happy, it is said, is the country that has no history. We have little enough, in the sense that history is composed of battles and wars, and none at all – in the mercy of Providence-in the matter of foreign invasion of our mainland soil. Until this century at least, our story was one of peaceful expansion, of conquest over the forces of Nature, and of enjoyment of the resources, wrung from a spacious Continent.’ The editorial does not acknowledge Australian Aboriginal ownership, possession or custodianship of Australia prior to the colonisation and invasion by whites. It suggests to the reader by exclusion that the land on which Sydney was built was uninhabited.

123 Although immigration is not mentioned the editorial states that having survived two World Wars that not all the dangers to Australia had disappeared with the end of Japanese power in the Pacific Ocean. The text states, ‘Asia is aroused and on the march … there is a need to keep our defences strong, expand our population, and vigorously develop our national heritage.’ The editorial is urging readers to be aware of dangerous forces in Asia and suggests through the use of the enonce ‘on the march’ that Australians will be forced to protect Australia from Asians who will descend on the country. These threats ‘in the years to come’ will challenge ‘the doctrines we have cherished, the standards we have built up’. It is a call to arms to protect and cherish ‘White Australia’ and denies any rights of ownership of Aboriginal Australians to their country. This editorial aligns and has resonance with the official immigration policy of the time, the need for increased ‘white’ immigration with its slogan of ‘Populate or Perish’. Through exclusion Aborigines are not spoken about in this passage. What is now understood as racist attitudes pervade this text which discursively attempts to protect white possession and control of Australia. This passage from the 1947 edition indicates that exclusion and silence form a major part of the discourse. In van Dijk’s (1988; 1991) studies of racism in the Dutch press this strategy was also present. In Foucault’s (1998a) research ‘silence’ is defined as a tactic of power that allows for a tolerance of unacceptable situations. This is the case in the example from 1947. The editorial for 1948 is the only text that deals with Australian citizenship based on the specified criteria. The section of the editorial ‘Australia Day Outlook’ is examined below. The major theme of ‘Australia Day Outlook’ is that Australia must increase its population or it will be taken over by Asians. In ‘Australia Day Outlook’ the editorial states, ‘(T)he thronging millions of Asia have been awakened to national awareness and a growing discontent…The tide of nationalism is still rising in the East. If we stand idly by it may one day swamp us. There are seven million people in Australia. In Indonesia there are 70 million, in India 400 million, in China 500 million. These land hungry races who have long resented our exclusionist policies and cast speculative eyes on our vast territories, may be increasingly disposed to demand that we show title to what we hold.’ The text suggests that the development of Australia as a white society has in-turn created resentment amongst Asians who are ‘land-hungry’. The same value statement is not

124 applied to the white colonisers who dispossessed Indigenous populations in Australia. By implication Asians are ‘land-hungry’ while whites are ‘settlers’. Through silence in the editorial, the white settlement of Australia was not violent and did not require the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from tribal, national and settled areas. The editorial does not acknowledge that due to this dispossession, the Aboriginal population was left in dire circumstances; landless and segregated in missions and reserves. The editorial continues with, ‘(M)igration must be stepped up by every possible means.’ Based on the opinion in the editorial this immigration could not be by Asian migrants but only by white immigrants. During the time of the Commonwealth50 Government’s ‘Populate or Perish’ immigration policy, the Aboriginal people as a potential population source have been left to ‘die-out’. In this system of thought they are not even fit to assimilate into white society and Indigenous peoples remained segregated from white society. The editorial hints at the growing historical forces of decolonisation and globalisation of the world community by acknowledging the end of Australia’s isolation. It states, ‘The world has shrunk; the long range aircraft has finally destroyed the illusion of our isolation … the tide of Nationalism is growing in the East.’ The editorial uses the language of fear of an Asian invasion to buttress the government program to increase the white population. In Said’s (2003) text the use of fear as a tactic of power is a major factor in the promotion of othering and marginalisation51. This use of fear in the 1948 Australia Day edition indicates that this tactic of power had been institutionalised. Foucault (1980) sees the institutionalisation of power as one of the five stages in the political economy of truth and its transmission in the media. It is an example of the political and economic apparatuses that play a significant role in shaping citizens by creating docile minds and bodies fit for ‘society’ (Foucault 1980; 1991a). The year 1949 was significant because from this time under law, all Australians including Aborigines were ‘citizens’ of Australia. A secondary status of ‘British subject’ remained for all Australians until 1984 when the British Nationality Act 1981 (U.K.) came in to force in Australia, which abolished the status of Australians as ‘British subjects’. However the benefits of this citizenship were not distributed equally to all.

50 Renamed the ‘Federal’ Government from 1973 and reverts to either the Commonwealth Government from 1997 in the discourse. 51 In particular the use of ‘othering’ post World War Two is discussed in Said’s, Orientalism, pp. 284-328.

125 From 1949 until 1967 continuing discriminatory practices were placed on Aboriginals because of limited constitutional protection, which gave them no rights to property, limited and unequal access to education and health services in comparison to whites, non- existent or limited travel rights to move away from missions and reserves, unequal employment opportunities, no equality of wages and no voting rights. Although voting rights were granted in 1962 it was only in 1984 that compulsory voting rights for Federal elections were extended to all Aboriginals eighteen and over. The 1949 editorial text ‘The Puzzle of Citizenship’ explains that Australians were now ‘citizens’ whilst also being British subjects but that Australian citizenship took precedence over their rights as British subjects. The editorial hints at the changing nature of Australia’s relationship with Britain, in effect it is a part of the ‘decolonising’ of Australia by Britain which had commenced from 1 January 1901. This date represented the ‘birth’ of the Australian nation. No mention is made of the rights of Aboriginals in this text and through silence, knowledge of Aboriginal Australians is kept hidden. Again Foucault (1998a) sees silence as an important tactic of power. Other texts within this edition are of significance to this study. The newspaper carries four texts on the plight of a group of Aboriginal Australians in Sydney’s outskirts they are: ‘Must Australia’s 30,000 Half-Castes Be Outcasts?’ (p2), ‘Movement of half- castes - They don’t belong down here’ (p4), ‘Inquiries will be made’ (p 4), ‘History of Mulgoa home’ (p4). The most significant article to the genealogy of Australian citizenship in this edition from 1949 is the article ‘Must Australia’s 30,000 Half-Castes Be Outcasts?’(p2). This article explains that the Commonwealth Government made a decision to move 21 Aboriginal children, who had been living at a home established by the Church Missionary Society at Mulgoa since 1942, to Adelaide and Alice Springs. The article called these Aboriginal Australians ‘half-castes’ as they had both Aboriginal and white heritage. The use of ‘half-castes’ to define racial descent was common at this time. It suggests a form of exclusion as the children were in effect according to whites, half of what was acceptable. The use of the enonce ‘half-caste’ within this system of thought was deemed to be acceptable at the time. It was an attempt to show how much ‘Aboriginal blood’ was in a

126 citizen from a ‘mixed’ union. Within this political truth Aboriginal Australians who were half-caste or ‘half-blood’ were in effect having their Aboriginality ‘bred out’ either by force or invitation. This ‘breeding out of the Aboriginal’ is further evidence that white Australia wanted to find a way of removing the Aboriginal problem. Davidson (1997; 2000) uses the term ‘genocide’ to describe these and other practices against Aborigines. I have avoided using this term as it does not help to explain the total lack of indifference towards their welfare accorded to Indigenous Australians by successive state, federal and Commonwealth governments and institutions. This belief in categorising people in terms of the removal of their ‘Aboriginality’ through state encouraged breeding programs is given authority through the advice of academic and medical experts. It is an authorised truth promulgated by authorities transmitted through media. Arendt (1994) in her study of the effects of racial classification shows how the language of classification is used as a tactic of power to change normative thinking regarding the worth of specific ‘racial’ groups. This dissertation also presents evidence from the discourse including this example from 1949 that the language of classification was used extensively to justify racist practices against Aboriginals. The article states that the people of mixed heritage are, ‘… ignored by his white progenitors, spurned by his full blooded cousins’ thus they are being discriminated against by both groups white and Aboriginal. The writer continues with, ‘… prejudice is an almost impossible barrier to break down… (they) find themselves excluded from public schools, confined to the worst part of the picture theatres, barred from hotels … not welcomed in church. This segregation or discrimination white Australians have attempted to justify in various ways.’ The article quotes from a number of experts or authorities including Professor Elkin, Professor of Anthropology Sydney University who states that, ‘They (the half-castes) are not educated; not clean; not normal; not steady at work; cannot ‘hold their drink’ and live in undesirable conditions. All this is true in many cases … but does not the cause lie in our prejudices and assumptions, and in our refusal to apply ordinary laws, regulations, and sanctions to them, as well as to afford them the normal privileges of citizenship?’ Another expert Dr. Cecil Cook former Chief Protector of Aborigines in the Northern Territory states, ‘The half-caste girl, properly brought up

127 … could be successfully married to a white man without causing his deterioration.’ Professor Cleland, Professor of Pathology, Adelaide University states his, ‘… advocacy of marriage between aborigines and whites as a solution to Australia’s native problem.’ In this way a form of genocide is deemed acceptable through an engineered breeding program. The workings of power/knowledge are clearly evident in this passage. Through the institutionalisation of power and its role in the production of truth government policy does not dominate the discourse at this time. Rather the social aspect of resistance to power is foregrounded52. This resistance is fundamental to the production of truth (Foucault 1980). The 1950 Australia Day edition represents the first anniversary of the birth of the Australian citizen. The lead story for this edition deals with the heroic rescues on a naval vessel. The only connection to Australian citizenship in this edition is the editorial (p.2) which is devoted to India which became a republic on 26 January 1950. The editorial makes note of the Indian Constitution securing to all citizens, ‘… justice, social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity.’ It suggests that such human rights have created divisions within Indian caste society as a belief in ‘equality’ is upsetting traditional Indian society. The cautionary nature of the story of India’s republicanism, its break from empire and the ‘pax Britannica’ is an allegory for Australian society and the unequal relationship between whites and Indigenous. Also it suggests that a break with the British monarchy, although India was still part of the Commonwealth of Nations, had unleashed socially dangerous practices that should be a warning for all white Australians. This text has overtones of a fear of the breakdown of white dominance if Australia moves away from its ‘Britishness’ and is a salient reminder to whites about the danger of ‘equality’ amongst cultural groups within society. This passage links with Said’s (2003) study of racial constructions through ‘othering’ and its place in maintaining a racial dominance by white Australians. This concept of white racial superiority continues throughout the specified time-period of the study.

52 This resistance to power is a common theme in Foucault’s research. See ‘Discipline and Punish’ pp. 133- 169.

128 There are two significant articles relating to Australian citizenship in the 1951 edition. The first being Attlee replies on migration (p3) and Appeal over migrants (p4). The text Attlee replies on migration deals with the extent to which Britain can assist in the migration of ‘British’ or white families to Australia and New Zealand. At this time the language of the article suggests that more white families were needed to counter- balance families of Italian, Greek and Yugoslavian descent arriving in Australia under the government’s migration program with its slogan of ‘populate or perish’. This transmits beliefs of white superiority which has been a constant theme in the discourse to this point53 and continues until and including 2007. The text Appeal over migrants deals with a member of the Anglican Church the ‘Right Reverend J R Blanchard Moderator General of the Presbyterian Church’ who told the Commonwealth Jubilee Citizenship Convention, ‘Let us welcome these people for what we can give them and they can give us in this time of mutual need’. In the passage the enonce of ‘these people’ refers to southern Europeans, mainly from Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia who were migrating in large numbers at this time. The Convention’s approach to the question of migration had emphasized almost entirely Australia’s economic need and the need for security and development. The convention also adopted a resolution that it was essential for migrants, especially “elder people,” to learn English, and that ‘some inducement to learn was needed’. This resolution suggests that there is a growing fear that social cohesion is being tampered with by immigrants, especially the elderly not being able to speak English. In essence the text suggests that the less ‘white’ the country is the more likely economic, social and political standards will decline. The text of significance in 1952 is the editorial ‘Sharp challenge of our national heritage’ (p. 2). This text deals with the question whether Australia could produce, ‘… the food to sustain its people’. This text quotes statistics that state that agricultural production increases at 1 per cent per year while population increases by more than 3 per cent per year. The editorial states that the development of the cities has been at the forefront of national development while, ‘… our roots are not in the cities but in the land” and further that Australia Day carries, “… a challenge to the whole community to redeem a

53 see van Dijk 1985 and 1997a for a discussion on the process and effects of the transmission of the language of racism.

129 heritage which is in danger of being left by the wayside’. In this text Indigenous Australians are marginalised and are not seen as members of the Australian community as ‘our’ in this passage refers to whites. The national day, ‘Australia Day’ is a call to all whites ‘to redeem their agricultural past’. According to the text increasing urbanisation is changing the national identity and the ‘traditional’ rural industries need to take their proper place in the national economy. Again this is a call to return to a mythical past, devoid of the Indigenous, where agricultural production was paramount and urbanisation did not dominate the country. Through the application of the above enunciative modalities, silence and exclusion of the Indigenous dominate the discourse and they are subsequently marginalised. Foucault’s (2002a) theory on the construction of knowledge through enunciative modalities indicates that this tactic of power is significant in the production of truth as indicated in the example from the text above. In the 1953 edition the significant text is Native Policy a “Scandal” – Dean (p3) where Dr. S. Barton Babbage, the Dean of Sydney stated during a special morning service for the intercession of Aborigines. He described Australia’s native policy as a national disgrace. Babbage states, ‘(O)ur native policy is indefensible in theory and disastrous in practice … neither preserving the inviolability of native reserves nor safeguards the aborigines from the depredations of whites … neither facilitates their advance to civilisation nor their ultimate assimilation…the fact remains that Australia’s native policy … is one of unashamed racial discrimination … it is a national scandal and disgrace that the original inhabitants of this continent should still be deprived of the most elementary of democratic rights. Nothing will be gained by a policy of segregation … Our goal must be that of eventual assimilation.’ This text is significant as it calls into question the discriminatory and racist practices of Australian governments and people. It is pushing the discourse to new areas and authorises the questioning of political leaders and all those who discriminate against Aboriginals. This text shows the continuing leadership of the churches in promoting racial equality. It is also an example of a rupture in thought as it foregrounds Aboriginal concerns and uses the enonce of ‘scandal’ to define the government’s policy towards Aboriginals and acknowledges that the policy of segregation has not afforded Aboriginal people with the necessary rights in a modern democracy.

130 In the 1954 edition the article of significance is from the editorial (p. 2) The day we celebrate – a few days hence. The text suggests that because Australia Day is not a truly national day as other states observe different days (e.g. Proclamation Day 28 January in South Australia) that April 25 known as Anzac Day should become the national day. The text asserts that Anzac Day should be our true national day as it matches what it calls ‘public sentiment’54. According to the editorial the average Australian has no attachment to Australia Day. This is because Australia, as stated in this text was not founded after being liberated from ‘a foreign yoke or domestic tyranny’. Further Anzac Day 25 April would be more fitting because it, ‘… was in the glory and tragedy of the landing of Gallipoli that Australia as a nation was born… Australians ought not to be casual about what has been officially designated as their national day. That first, peaceful landing on the primeval shore where a great city now stands, and close to where the Queen will disembark next week, deserves to be remembered and honoured. There and then our history began. From humble origins the work of colonisation and civilisation spread, until to-day we are a nation of nine millions, proud of our heritage, hopeful of our future, and grateful to the pioneers who blazed the Australian trail.’ Indigenous perspectives are not represented or acknowledged in the text. The use of the enonce ‘peaceful’ suggests that the land was handed over to the British by a grateful Indigenous population who awaited colonisation and ‘civilisation’. The enonce of ‘primeval’ suggests a land and people that time forgot. Accounts from the time of colonisation all state that fires were lit along Sydney Harbour as the Aboriginals shouted to the ships coming into the harbour with ‘Walla, Walla, Wha’ or ‘Warra, Warra’ translated as ‘Go Away’. By denying an Indigenous history with the enunciative modality of “There and then our history began” the writer denies and silences Indigenous history, culture, language and civilisation either before or after the arrival of the British. The use of the enonce ‘our’ denotes an ‘in-group’ mentality that is that ‘our’ assumes whiteness and Britishness and the othering of non-whites. The deep discursive structures that frame the discourse are apparent in this source. Foucault’s (2002a) theory of the importance of enunciative modalities to understanding the discourse is indicated in the above passage.

54 As stated by Goot and Rowse (2007) public sentiment is a social construction and should not be used to give authority to ideas or actions.

131 Figure 6.1 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the archive from 1946-1955

1946-1955

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 Years

1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 White 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Indigenous 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 Migrant 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Poverty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

The 1955 edition’s most significant article is the lead story on the front page with an accompanying photograph of an apprentice and his teacher in, what the paper calls, a ‘boomerang factory’. The photograph has a picture of two people identified as Aboriginals. The elder Aboriginal is titled ‘Mr’ and the headline uses the upper case ‘A’ for Aboriginal. The headline Young Aboriginal Apprentice Learns How To Make And Throw Boomerangs comprises ten words including ‘Aboriginal’ that have all been capitalised. It could be argued that in this case ‘Aboriginal’ is capitalised because all the other nine words in the headline had been capitalised as well rather than denoting a commonality with white Australians. This is the first example of the capitalised ‘Aboriginal’. The use of the title ‘Mr’ for the teacher Mr Bob Simms suggests that it is

132 appropriate for the white community to use this honorary title for Aboriginal adult males in 1955. The text that accompanies the picture emphasise the words ‘modern all electric’ and ‘factory’ to denote the Aboriginals in this story deserve the respect of the readers as they are participating in a business venture that harmonises with contemporary capitalism by manufacturing a marketable product for distribution, exhibition and consumption. It suggests that all Aboriginals can be assimilated into western society and be productive producers of goods and services. The teacher Mr Bob Simms is given the ultimate tribute by the journalist. This is done through an association with Great Britain’s monarch Queen Elizabeth II as Mr Simms made boomerangs for the Queen on her tour of Australia in 1954. The text Young Aboriginal Apprentice Learns How To Make And Throw Boomerangs is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is positioned on the front page of the Australia Day edition. Thus it places the Aboriginal ‘question’, which is how white Australians reconcile their relationships with Aboriginal Australians, as the most important question for all Australians to ponder on Australia Day. This article from 1955 is also the first time that an Aboriginal is given a title such as ‘Mr’ or ‘Mrs’ within the data source. By doing so the article is placing the Aboriginal teacher on the same social level as white Australians and for this reason is a rupture55 to the citizenship practices of the time. The analysed text from the 1956 edition is entitled A.W.U. Unanimous on White Aust. Policy. This article transmits the position of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) on Asian migration. The article states that the AWU registered its disapproval of what the paper called ‘attempts’ to allow ‘coloured and Asiatic labour into Australia’. It quotes from a speech by the A.W.U’s general secretary Mr. T. Dougherty who stated, “The White Australia policy must be proudly held forward as our national right…” As the

55 For an explanation of discontinuity and rupture in history and its role in re-imagining history not as a series of continuities see Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, pp.8-9. According to Foucault (2002a) the theory of discontinuity to systems of thought allows for a historicisation of the discourse. Discontinuity is significant as it shows when the discourse changed. This rupture in thinking breaking free from deep discursive structures also demonstrates Foucault’s (1980) belief that ‘individuals are the vehicles of power not its point of application’. This emerging discontinuity is silenced again in future years but fully emerges in the 1980s.

133 article has no editorial comment or discussion of the merits of ‘the national right’ the paper endorses this position through silence and by doing so shapes the understanding and knowledge of ‘the national right’ as a justifiable ‘whites only’ position. This encourages othering of coloureds, Asiatics, essentially all non-whites including Indigenous Australians. By doing so it reinforces relations of power between whites and ‘others’. By remaining silent56 it endorses this characteristic form of power/knowledge within the discourse of citizenship with the subsequent expectation that readers need not question the othering of ‘coloureds and Asiatics’. The 1957 edition’s has a text entitled ‘U.K. Govt. Seeks To Extend Period For Assisted Migration’. This article reports on the Commonwealth Government’s attempts to extend British emigration until 1962. The Commonwealth Government had encouraged white emigration from Britain to Australia under a Commonwealth Government program. At this time emigration was heavily subsidised by the Australian government with British families paying only £10 to migrate to Australia. Consequently theses immigrants were euphemistically known as ‘ten pound Poms’. The article discusses the Commonwealth Government’s program and the Labour Opposition Party’s views on the importance of maintaining British emigration so as to bolster the White Australian Policy. The text discusses the continuing fear of Asians as the external ‘other’ to the north of Australia who potentially could take possession of parts of Australia if the Commonwealth Government did not continue with the assisted passage program. The article shows gratitude to the British for continuing to encourage white migration. It also promotes the White Australia Policy and the activities of politicians such as Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell from the Labour Party. He promotes a fear of Australia being swamped by land-hungry ‘Asiatics’ through his belief that Australia needs to increase its white population otherwise ‘Asiatics’ could view unpopulated areas as ‘vacant’. In this passage a shared value of being ‘white’ is made evident through the discussion of the White Australia Policy (WAP) and the benefits to whites of its promotion particularly as a counter offensive to a potential Asian occupation of Australia57. Unusually this text also reports

56 Foucault in The History of Sexuality: 1 states that specific domains formed by relations of power are those of prohibition and censorship He calls these ‘the cycle of prohibition’ and the ‘logic of censorship’ which both include the element of silence. See pp. 81 - 91 for a full discussion of the analytics of power. 57 Again this is a familiar theme in Said’s (2003) Orientalism.

134 on fears of the Americanisation of Australian values as seen in Sydney with concerns over demeanour and general behaviour of Sydneysiders which was perceived as being seen to be more American than British58. The justification for the continuation of the WAP is not only viewed as an external threat but also an internal threat of a population that is showing signs of losing its ‘Britishness’. In this passage British values and behaviour are seen as immutable and pure and Australia needs a continual injection of ‘purity’ to defend itself not only from an external enemy but also from a potential enemy within59. The 1958 edition demonstrates relations of power and the construction of knowledge through the juxtaposition of two articles. The texts report on the granting of scholarships, one to a white male while the other is granted to an Aboriginal male. The report, Native study in U.K. (p4) reports on the anthropologist Malcolm Calley, presumably a ‘white’, as he is not reported as being Aboriginal, Asian or non-white. He received a post-graduate scholarship to study at the London School of Economics. The enonce ‘Aboriginals’ is used in the lower case, as in ‘aboriginal’ and continues the normative thinking from 1946. The article reports Calley saying that, “… aborigines should be allowed to drink beer in hotels”. Calley was going to London to discuss, “… the barriers which stood in the way of granting equality to aborigines – among them the wrong ideas held by white people”. This is a significant article because the authority is promoting the concept of racial equality and that whites have ‘wrong ideas’ about Aboriginals. This article is contrasted with the article Aboriginal as pilot (p11). The headline for this article capitalises ‘Aboriginal’. This follows the grammatical convention of capitalising the first word of a sentence rather than an attempt to give Aboriginals discursive equality with whites. This is evident in subsequent passages in this text where Aboriginals are identified in the lower case as, ‘aboriginals’. This article reports that plans were being completed to train, “Australia’s first aboriginal pilot.” The text states

58 Such concerns about the conditioning effects of American movies on young Britains were also expressed by politicians and reported by newspapers in Britain during the 1930s. See Briggs’ Power, Prosperity and Promise: a history of the USA 1898-1941, pp.163-164. Politicians blamed the domination of American films in British cinemas as a reason for changing social values. 59 For other examples of this in the literature see Said (2003) Orientalism and Manning (2004) Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism.

135 that, “He is Bill Bennell, 19, of Perth”, who was awarded a scholarship to become Australia’s first Aboriginal pilot. Mr. N. Fortune, secretary of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots’ Association planned to have him trained by the Royal Aero Club, Bankstown and was reported to have said that, “We think it will be better if he boards privately rather than live at the Royal Aero Club.” The use of the word ‘We’ communicates a power relationship on two levels. At the primary level ‘We’ means all whites as represented by the Association and at a secondary level the power relationship is paternalistic in that ‘We’ means a decision has been made for the Aboriginal Australian by whites. In this system of thought Aboriginals are not capable of making decisions for their own welfare. Fortune’s comment that Bennell should board privately rather than live at the Royal Aero Club is a form of institutionalised segregation and the social promotion of apartheid which correlates with the government’s then segregationist policies. The article does not question the comment and by not doing so approves of the segregationist comments of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots’ Association through its silence. As no explanation is given within the article as to why Bennell should not board at the Royal Aero Club, Bankstown which presumably previous scholarship winners have done, the only conclusion the reader can have based on the information about Bennell’s cultural background is that he is not allowed to board at the Royal Aero Club because he is an Aborigine. The report does not state a position about this segregation and so by the use of silence on this matter the paper acknowledges that segregation is acceptable and authorises that Aboriginals are not equal to whites. Of note with this article is that Bill Bennell is not described as ‘Mr. Bill Bennell’. The unnamed journalist does not give him the title ‘Mr.’ which is done for Mr. N. Fortune who is also named in the article. In Native study in U.K. from this edition the scholarship awardee Malcolm Calley is titled as ‘Mr.’ This inconsistency of approach from one scholarship winner (white) to the next scholarship winner (Aboriginal) could suggest a lack of respect due to beliefs that Aboriginal Australians were not equal to whites and therefore should not be given honorary titles. This is also an example of the deep discursive structures that promoted what we now know as ‘racism’ but at the time due to the limits of discourse was a suitable practice for the time. These citizenship

136 practices when analysed help to historicise the discourse and allow for reflections on the truth of current practices in our society today. Of importance with these articles is the obvious connection between the two scholarships with Calley’s post-graduate study reported in Native study in U.K. undertaken to shift prejudices by whites about Aboriginal Australians and to promote equality for Aborigines. Bennell’s scholarship as reported in Aboriginal as pilot although apparently celebrating that Aboriginals have opportunities in flight industries and can be trained as pilots, promotes segregation and racial inequality. These texts show the struggle for dominance of two ideas within the discourse of citizenship, the racial superiority of whites and the need for equality for Aboriginals. Foucault (1980) discusses the role of the struggle for dominance60 as fundamental to the production of truth and the above passages indicate an emerging transformation. Two other texts from this edition are found in the Appendices. The 1959 edition has two texts of significance. The first is a letter to the editor entitled ‘Racial Mixing’. In this text the writer Lorraine Verrills from Cremorne, a suburb of Sydney, states that she agrees with The Herald correspondent Ailsa Davies’ article which was published on January 23 1959. In this article Davies states that children of mixed Australian and Asian descent are, “… consistently marked by a lack of emotional stability.” The letter writer is responding to an assertion by The Herald writer that Asian- Australian children are emotionally unstable. The writer states that this is not because of ‘the mixing of blood’ but because of social attitudes to these children. This text does not endorse whites breeding with Asians as the children from such unions are socially stigmatised. The warning by the journalist is that whites should not breed with Asians as their children will suffer due to the “mixing of blood” i.e. inferior blood (Asian) with superior blood (White). In this text the discourse of racial superiority is maintained through myth and opinion about the superiority of ‘white blood’ as opposed to ‘Asian blood’. It also promotes the importance of white racial purity through a socially enforced segregation of whites from ‘others’, in this case Asians61. By publishing the letter in the letters page the paper is adding to the discussion commenced a few days before in the

60 For a discussion on the role of dominance in relations of power see Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge, pp. 92-102. 61 For a discussion on the historiography of racial theory see Said Orientalism pp. 206-210.

137 SMH by one of its own writers and augments the argument presented about the negative effects of miscegenation. With these texts the representations of whites as superior to other races is adding to relations of power, power/knowledge and othering within citizenship discourse. The second text from 1959 is located within the editorial. It is titled ‘Australia Day and its meaning’. This text gives an explanation of the meaning of Australia Day from a white perspective. There is no acknowledgement of Aboriginal occupation of Australia prior to white settlement being offered in the body of the text. The editorial maintains the traditional belief that although Aborigines had possession of the Australian continent they were few in number and needed to be civilised through British occupation. Additionally by not raising any acknowledgement of Aboriginal ownership the editorial through silence maintains existing understandings of relations of power between whites and Indigenous thus it adds to the characteristic power-knowledge relationship. Again the editorial through its silence on the nature of the white occupation of Australia and its subsequent deleterious effects on Aboriginal society promotes the view that Aboriginal concerns are outside the realms of white Australians and need not be part of citizenship discourse. The 1960 edition has two articles of significance. The first is Plea for Australia Day Patriotism (p4) which reports on the planned ceremony for Australia Day. In the article NSW Premier Mr R J Heffron said that, “(I)t is a proud day; one which every true Australian should show the world appreciation of our heritage.” In this text, ‘our’ means ‘White’ or ‘British’. The phrase ‘our heritage’ manifestly relates to white heritage. As an enunciative modality it excludes any notion of people with Aboriginal heritage from the statement by the State Premier. As the state premier is viewed as a person of significant authority the lack of acknowledgement of Aborigines demonstrates that he is maintaining the normative view of citizenship discourse which has no room for Aboriginal concerns. The second article, ‘Many offers to adopt Jap. Children’ (p14) reports on Australian couples wanting to adopt what the article describes as “half-Australian” children ‘left’ in Japan by ‘our’ occupation forces. The headline’s use of the word ‘Jap.’ denotes that it is an abbreviation for the word ‘Japanese’. By placing this full-stop the text begrudgingly acknowledges that the ‘Japs’, as they were referred to in the 1958

138 edition, the former enemies of Australians could be referred to as ‘Japanese’. This pushes the discourse to partially accept that the former enemies of Australia are now allies in the continuing fight against communism in what was understood by this time as the ‘Cold War’. This is a significant article because it deals with ‘whites’ attempting to adopt Asian children into the Australian lifestyle and culture. This is an example of an emerging discontinuity similar to the emerging rupture in 1958 that is that whites are not superior to other races. This is the same white culture that the paper endorsed in 1959 as one in which children from white and Asian unions suffered social consequences because of the inherent racism of Australians. The text acknowledges that there are problems faced with the adoption of Asian children. These were that the Japanese mothers did not want to give up their children and that the White Australia Policy which the article calls the “Australian Immigration policy” precluded extensive Asian migration. In the text the children of these mixed unions are considered to be ‘half-Australian’ to enact a sympathetic understanding from readers rather than ‘half-Japanese’. The text uses the enonce by calling them ‘half-Australian’. In this sense their whiteness metaphorically means they are ‘half-full’ whereas their Asian background would mean they are ‘half- empty’. The text also avoids using the expression ‘White’ but twice uses the expression ‘Australian Immigration policy’. This suggests that it is unnecessary to use the term ‘White Australia Policy’ because by 1960 it was beginning to be understood that ‘Australian Immigration’ promotes white culture as superior to others and that effectively the Australian Immigration policy is exclusionary. In this way silence protects normative thinking. An alternative view would be that the enonce ‘White Australia Policy’ was becoming better understood as a racist policy and although understood as that, the explicit use of the term does not need to be mentioned. Although a form of silence it is a specific tactic of power that has emerged62. This is a ‘transformation’ and as a strategy of power and links with Manning’s (2004; 2006) studies on the use of coded language after September 11 to effect political gain. In this way the enonce ‘White Australia Policy’

62 see Foucault Power/Knowledge p.77 and The History of Sexuality p. 84 for further discussion of silence as a tactic of power

139 does not need to be used in that the term ‘Australian immigration’ becomes code for ‘white immigration only’. The 1961 edition returns to a common theme, the concern over the decreasing number of migrants from Britain in the editorial Decline of a splendid British vision. This editorial uses a paper from the Citizenship Convention held the previous week, to lament that British emigration to Australia will only number 35,000 rather than the hoped for 50,000. This decline in British emigration to Australia meant that the British influence was steadily declining due to subsequent migrants also coming from European countries including Italy and Holland. The editorial calls for a greater initiative to attract more British migrants to Australia. The editorial uses the language of fear to express concerns that declining British immigration will change the nature of the Australian people. The text asserts that British characteristics are essential to continue the ‘vision splendid’ of one branch of the British Commonwealth in Australia that characteristic being its ‘whiteness’. The editorial explains that Britain wants Australia to compete for immigration as Britain is not the world leader it was before World War Two. The editorial wants this decline remedied by greater white migration which will maintain Australia’s British heritage and continue to keep the cultural links to Britain strong as they were shortly after World War Two. The text appeals to white Australians through the use of language that transmits a fear of change. The media’s role in the production of truth as shown above is also described by Foucault (1980) where he indicates it is part of the political and economic apparatuses that produce truth63. The 1962 edition has two texts of significance. The first ‘Prosperity needed for migration success’ (p8) reports from the Citizenship Convention where Professor Morven S. Brown of the Good Neighbour Council of N.S.W. stated that, ‘… with full employment all groups can fairly easily be induced to respect, and often like, each other. Under conditions of competition for scarce employment dislikes and aversions that we never suspected are fanned into flames’. Brown’s group believed that white Australians had formed their national identity mainly in the nineteenth century when the whole British world was nationalistic, insular and suspicious of other parts of the world. The Citizenship Convention also noted that Australians were now a more tolerant people than

63 See Michel Foucault Power/Knowledge pp131-132 on an explanation of the five characteristics of truth.

140 before World War Two. They accepted the presence of non-British migrants and accepted their right to be different from Britains. Brown said that, ‘… Australians were now a people to whom the idea of a pluralist and multi-racial society was a natural and acceptable thing.’ As an enunciative modality this demonstrates continuing silence on Aboriginal Australia. At the most basic level it does not acknowledge that with the foundation of the British colony at Farm Cove in 1788 ‘Australian’ society was bi- cultural, that is two cultures one white culture dominating the local Indigenous culture. The hidden fact of Australian history from 1788 is that Australia was bi-cultural but acknowledged as monocultural or British only. The statement analysed on another level is also an example of a discontinuity64 in the discourse because the transformation of this ‘monoculture’ into a multi-racial society happened at incredible speed. In less than a generation Australian society was culturally transformed and acknowledged as a multi- racial society. This was authorised, accepted and acknowledged as the only way forward for Australia within the citizenship discourse at that time. However the critical point remains that the Indigenous have never been seen as part of a solution in making Australia a truly multicultural society. During this period they are still seen as a problem that needs to be silenced. The second text, ‘Record Attendance Expected For 174th Anniversary’ (p8) reports that a record attendance was expected for celebrations in Sydney to mark the 174th anniversary of the “founding of Australia”. It reports comments from a spokesman for the organising committee who said that, ‘…symbolism would play a great part in the official ceremony this year. Three children would take part in a tableau representing Australia’s past, present and future … An aboriginal girl, Donnalleen Campbell, of La Perouse, will represent Australia in the past …’ This is another example of a transformation in the discourse as it is the first example from the study where Aboriginal Australians are mentioned as participating in official Australia Day ceremonies. This ‘rupture’ officially sanctions the view that there was a history before the arrival of the British. A history has been sanctioned to exist by white authorities and within this knowledge it is possible to consider the history of the Aboriginal people as part of the history of Australia. While Aboriginality is celebrated the article maintains the lower case

64 For a discussion of discontinuities see Michel Foucault The Archaeology of Knowledge pp 9-10.

141 ‘a’ in ‘aboriginal’. These representations of Australia’ Aboriginal past through official authorisation could lead citizens to ponder the nature of the rights of Aboriginal Australians at that time and their previous treatment by whites over the previous 174 years of white rule. The 1963 edition includes the text ‘Sydney Cove The Ithaca of Phillip’s Odyssey’ (p2). The article has diary entries written in 1788 where the writer creates an account of the founding of ‘the colony’ at Sydney Cove. Of interest is the writer’s view of the reactions of the Aborigines to the arrival of Arthur Phillip’s landing party. “The only consolation was that the natives, although apprehensive, had shown little hostility to the parties which had gone ashore …” The text suggests a certain resignation on the part of the Indigenous to the overwhelming nature of the British arrival. Again the technique of backgrounding Aboriginal concerns is a further demonstration of allowing the shaping of the discourse to exclude the rights of the Indigenous. The front page headline for the 1964 edition is “Asia: a warning 1. Aust. To stand firm in Papua, 2. Race Policy Plea, 3. Britain “cool” (p7). Of significance is, ‘2. Race Policy Plea’ which reports from the annual summer school of the Australian Institute of Political Science at the Albert Hall in Canberra where Professor K.Tregonning stated that Australia may have to amend its traditional White Australia policy if it is to gain acceptance in Asia. This example of the circulation of discourse aligns with Foucault (1971a) whereby academics help maintain the discourse through an appeal to ‘authorities’ who are the gatekeepers of knowledge65. This is significant as the article promotes the opinion of an expert who suggests that the White Australia Policy will need to be amended or dismantled. Such a view is a threat to relations of power yet is authorised within the discourse and links with the 1960 use of the enonce Australian Immigration Policy rather than its understood title of the ‘White Australia Policy. This enunciative modality ‘Australia may have to amend its traditional White Australia policy if it is to gain acceptance in Asia’ is an example of an emerging shift at the limits of discourse in that it is the first time that such an opinion has been expressed in the newspapers from 1946-1964. Within three years of this article the White Australia Policy

65 For a discussion on the role of intellectuals and academics in the circulation of discourse see also Foucault Power/Knowledge p. 132

142 was amended by Prime Minister Holt’s Liberal Government which began the dismantling of the policy. This coincided with Australia’s increasing role both militarily and economically in the region. It was legislatively removed from Australia’s laws in 1973 by Prime Minister Whitlam’s Labor Government (1972 – 1975).

Figure 6.2 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the archive from 1956-1965

1956-1965

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 Years

1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 White 1 1 3 2.5 2 0.5 0.5 3 1 0 Indigenous 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Migrant 2 2 0 0.5 0 0.5 1.5 0 0 0 Poverty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

The 1965 editorial quotes from the Prime Minister of Britain Sir Winston Churchill who had died on January 24. He believed that the union between the British Empire and the US was, “… the main hope of human freedom … It is no exaggeration to say that the future of the whole world and the hopes of broadening civilisation founded upon

143 Christian ethics depend upon the relations between the British Empire or Commonwealth and the U.S.A.” The text also quotes from Churchill’s famous 1946 Fulton, Missouri speech where the term ‘Iron Curtain’ was used to explain the growing divisions between the West and Soviet Russia. Churchill is quoted as saying that, “(E)ventually there … will come the principle of common citizenship…” By quoting this section of the speech the editorial promotes the concept of eventual equality and by doing so acknowledges the barriers to ‘others’ that remain in place during the Cold War. Based on the criteria there are no results available for 1966 or from 1967. However, the edition from 27 January 1967 proved fruitful and is presented here as part of the archive. The front-page of the 27 January has a photograph from the rain affected ceremony held the previous day to mark the 179th anniversary of, “… the founding of Australia”. The paper reported that 200 people were in attendance under the headline, “Another Australia Day Steals Quietly By” which suggests a general apathy by citizens to this day. The editorial from 27 January 1967 (p2) Asia and us reports on a speech given by the Prime Minister Harold Holt in his Australia Day message. Holt states that Asia presented an economic opportunity for Australia because of ‘our’ proximity to Asia. The editorial states that, “… under his leadership our Asian policy has thrown off a number of shackles … The better we get to know and understand our Asian neighbours, the sooner the old myths about them are decently interred, the more confidently can we regard our future.” The text acknowledges that the discourse contains myths about Asians that need to be debunked if Australia is to move forward into global citizenry66. This emerging rupture reflects Held’s (2002) theory of globalisation as, ‘… a shift in the spatial form of human organization and activity to transcontinental or interregional patterns of activity, interaction and the exercise of power’ (p. 305). There is one article of significance in the edition from 1968. The text ‘The Kable who was first ashore’ (p5) asks the question, ‘Who first set foot on the soil of Sydney Cove?’ It discusses the story of the convict Henry Kable, who it was believed was the first white to set foot on Sydney Cove, Port Jackson. Aboriginal Australians are

66 In Foucault’s Power/Knowledge (1980) he discusses the formation of discourses and the genealogy of knowledge as also linked to geography. He sees tactics and strategies of power as, ‘… deployed through implantations, distributions, demarcations, control of territories and organisations of domains which could well make up a sort of geopolitics…’ (p. 77).

144 mentioned only once throughout the article as, “(D)ark people in dark forests, watching … as the white men came ashore”. In this passage they are hidden and resigned to their fate and ultimately forgettable. Aboriginal Australians are represented as passive, not resisting the landing of the whites. As an enunciative modality it creates an image of a people who are hiding, scared, inferior to the whites. Importantly the headline ‘Who first set foot on the soil of Sydney Cove?’ is an enunciative modality because in this discursive formation Aborigines are marginalised and backgrounded by denying Aboriginal ownership of the land.

5.4.2 Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 - 1980 In the second period from 1969 – 1980 the discourse permits authorised voices to question why poverty is accepted, why racism towards migrants is acceptable and why Aborigines are being racially discriminated against by whites. Additionally this period sees the emergence of ‘enterprise citizenship’ as a new form of the Australian citizenship experience. The text of significance from the 1969 edition is Yet Another Title (p2) which discusses the attributes of the Aboriginal Australian sportsperson Lionel Rose who had been named Australian of the Year. He was also named the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s (ABC) Sportsman of the Year. Rose was the champion bantamweight boxer of the world. In 1968 Rose fought and beat the Japanese boxer Harada in a title fight held in Tokyo. On his return to Melbourne as the world champion he was greeted by 250,000 cheering fans. The article states, ‘… (Lionel Rose) is the first Aboriginal to receive the award’. This is the first instance within the parameters of the study from 1946 that the word ‘Aboriginal’ is capitalised. This humanises Aborigines and treats them discursively as a people equal to other races. In all previous years all texts used the lower case ‘a’ when using the word Aboriginal. In this sense Aboriginal Australians are given the same standing based on this capitalisation as other cultural or ethnic groupings. To be ‘Aboriginal’ based on this premise was deemed within the text as being of the same standing as other racial groupings. This event is a transformation as not only has an Aborigine been named as the Australian of the year, the language that reports the event is also a transformation. Foucault (1980) discusses this phenomenon by stating that,

145 ‘(D)uring certain periods there appear agents of liaison’ (p.62). The rules of discourse allow Aboriginals equality with whites. It has shifted to permit this new understanding of truth through ‘agents of liaison’ between government, institutions and media. In the following day’s The Sydney Morning Herald Monday January 27 1969 the editorial In search of a new deal discusses a text from the previous week on poverty. It states, ‘… (there is a) poverty in Australia that should shame a society pleased to call itself Christian. Other countries have poverty, too. But they are often less complacent about it than we are’. This is the first mention of the word ‘poverty’ within the timeframe from 1946 – 1969 to this point and demonstrates an emerging transformation. The article suggests that egalitarianism and social justice were the dominant themes for Australia during the 19th century but that it could be argued that egalitarianism is ‘now outmoded or unworkable.’ The editorial advocates the idea that Australia, ‘… is very largely a country without ideas. We are a second hand society. Isolation, instead of acting as a spur to innovation and invention, has tempted us to get along quite comfortably by copying others.’ Further, ‘(I)n some ways our insularity is fortunate. It is comfortable … to be isolated from a world in which traditional, moral and social values are undergoing profound and painful changes.’ To the editor ‘isolation’ is a blessing and a curse and the editor calls for a larger vision from the Australian people. Again this is an important text as it moves the discourse of citizenship to new areas by acknowledging poverty and its social implications. This text runs counter to Thompson’s (2001) claim that in Australia, ‘… (up to the 1990s) we believed that all Australians were entitled to a share in the goodies of our society, and that ideally they were entitled to the same share’ (p 71). In the 1970 edition the text of significance is Australia Day in Cook Year Message from the Prime Minister. This texts reports on an Australia Day message from the Prime Minister John Gorton who states that, “(J)ust 200 years ago, Captain Cook made his voyage of discovery along our east coast … We have come far in the last two hundred years.” In this text ‘our’ and ‘We’ means whites and the use of the word ‘discovery’ denies prior ownership of the land by the Indigenous. An important text is found in the following day’s edition on 27/1/70. One of the Old Hands says hello to a new citizen (p8) states, ‘Miriana Marusic, 16, reads her naturalisation certificate with Aboriginal full-blood Steve Dodd, of Alice Springs’

146 includes a picture of the two people. In this text the enunciative modality of ‘Aboriginal full-blood’ as in the 1969 edition ‘Aboriginal’, is capitalised. This continues to break from the use of the lower case ‘a’ for ‘Aboriginal’. However, the term ‘full-blood’ is used to denote that there has been no racial mixing with whites or ‘others’ and is a continuation of white fears about miscegenation. It is the last example of its type in the discourse. This man ‘represents’ the true Aboriginal Australian and according to the headline for the article he is an ‘old-hand’ at being ‘an Australian’. The text embeds the position that Aboriginals are Australian citizens. There are two texts of significance from the 1971 edition. Why wait two years reports on Prime Minister John Gorton’s comments in Singapore. He stated, ‘… that there was still legal discrimination against Aborigines in some Australian States … in Queensland and Western Australia.’ The editorial asks why should Gorton state that these laws will be repealed in two years by the states or the Federal government (before the next Federal election in December 1972) when the Federal government has the power to act at that time in January 1971. The editorial states that this is the first time that Gorton had threatened Federal intervention in State powers. The text promotes Gorton’s position but asks why the Prime Minister needs to wait to intervene to end State based discrimination. The editorial asks, “(W)hy should Mr Gorton have to admit to a critical overseas audience that there is still legal discrimination against Aborigines…” This makes the reader of the editorial aware that Australia is not isolated and that people overseas think critically about what is happening in Australia. The text is attempting to shift the discourse of citizenship to encourage Prime Minister Gorton to end legal racial discrimination against Aboriginals. PM says migrant policy is racist (p2) reports that the Prime Minister admitted that Australia had a racist immigration policy but he believed that all countries had a racist immigration policy. The enonce of ‘racist’ in this 1971 edition makes its first entry into the lexicon of citizenship discourse. The Prime Minister John Gorton stated that Australia should remain homogenous but that other races could come to Australia to be assimilated. The article states, ‘(B)y multi-racial he meant a society in which there were people with different coloured skins, of different racial extraction such as in fact, Australia had at the moment. We had Australians, Aboriginals, Australians of Chinese extraction, of Japanese

147 extraction, of a variety of races’. In this passage only those who are willing to be assimilated are welcome to the country so that the truth of discourse is that other cultures are a threat to what Gorton calls ‘homogenous’ Australia. The enunciative modality ‘homogenous’ denies Aboriginal rights and equality as stated by Gorton there still existed in Australia legal racial discrimination which clearly negates any suggestion of homogeneity. In the 1972 edition the text Land for Aborigines – offer by PM is significant. It does not acknowledge that Aboriginals’ ownership of the land was removed by the occupation and invasion by the British in 1788. Despite this silence on the historical fact the government released a new policy allowing Aboriginals to ‘qualify’ for land. However to qualify for leases Aborigines will have to show that they intend, and are able, to make reasonable economic and social use of the land. This new policy arose out of a ruling from the Northern Territory Supreme Court in April 1971. It proclaimed that Australian law did not recognise Aboriginal title to land. In the text under the sub heading ‘Equal Rights’ it paraphrases the five objectives the policy attempted to create, ‘Aborigines should be assisted as individuals … with equal access to … rights and opportunities, the rights of individual Aborigines to choose the degree and pace of identification with the Australian society, programs must take into account the expressed wishes of Aborigines themselves, should encourage Aborigines to manage their own affairs, transitional measures should be introduced.’ The emergence of this transformation in the discourse with knowledge of inequality experienced by Aboriginals expressed from this passage is important. This represents the struggle of one domination over another in the production of truth in the discourse of citizenship. In the edition from 1973 the text Aboriginal ‘embassy’ charges to be dropped reports on the Federal Government67 not pressing any of the remaining charges arising from the removal of the Aboriginal ‘embassy’ from the lawns in front of Parliament House in July 1972. The text represents Aboriginals as having a right to establish an embassy on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra, the national capital in order to draw attention to their quest for greater equality and land rights.

67 Known as the ‘Commonwealth’ Government from 1901-1972

148 The second text from this year is from the following day’s edition Jan 27 1973 entitled No hardship in citizenship which reports that the Immigration Minister Al Grasby discussed legislative changes to the Immigration Act stating that ‘citizenship’ ceremonies would replace ‘naturalisation’ ceremonies. It was part of the Government’s desire to stress the importance of citizenship and the concept of ‘the united national family’. The text states, ‘(O)ur concept of Australian citizenship is one which sees many varied threads making up the national fabric’ (p8). The word ‘citizenship’ as an enonce is used in the text to explain that different cultural groups should be treated equally under the law and accepted as Australians. The previous use of the term ‘naturalisation’ suggests that immigrants needed to assimilate to white society. In this text equality and fairness for other cultural groups is being advocated by an authorised voice. Whereas previously in the discourse there was a strong sense of ‘othering’ the authorised voice supports inclusiveness. The Australia Day edition for 1974 the front-page text ‘Illegal migrants offered amnesty’ states that the government has offered an amnesty to ‘illegal immigrants’. The enonce ‘illegal migrants’ makes its first appearance in the discourse. Unlike the discourse in later years these people are considered to be worthwhile residents of Australia and should not be deported hence the government’s offer. Again this article shows the significance of the day to political leaders to shift the discourse to new areas of thought. The following day’s edition (27/1/74) text Capital has its day (p. 23) uses quotes from a speech made in Canberra on Australia Day by the Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. He is quoted as saying, ‘… there should be no place in Australia for poverty or unequal opportunity … Australia should never again be thought of as a racist nation and never again be involved in futile foreign wars or intervention’. The discourse has shifted to allow the view that Australia was a racist nation but that now it is not. This also shows that the enonce ‘racist’ is understood within the discourse. It is only its second appearance the first in 1971. This new enonce shows the limits of discourse. According to Foucault (1981) it is at the limits of discourse that new ideas emerge and are contested before they are either enveloped to become part of the tradition or are discarded. Thus knowledge of Australia’s racist past has become part of the discursive framework and

149 belief that Australia was not racist is false. Through exclusion of the false statement the discourse produces new knowledge.

Figure 6.3 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the discourse from 1966 - 1975

1966-1975

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 Years

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 White 1 0.5 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1.5 Indigenous 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 1 0 0.5 Migrant 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Poverty 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Equality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The text of significance from the 1975 edition is entitled ‘Two colourful galas to mark Australia Day’ (p27). The text mentions Sydney’s ‘coat of arms’ which includes an ‘Aboriginal’ among a number of British emblems. A national dress ‘…which is a combination of European and Aboriginal styling…’ was to be placed on display during the parades to mark Australia Day. The text reminds readers that Australia has a history

150 prior to white arrival which is represented in Sydney’s coat of arms. The transition from the early text from the 1940s and 1950s which were silent on Aboriginal history to this new orthodoxy or as Foucault (1981) calls them ‘socially agreed boundaries’ places an Aboriginal history within the discursive framework. The following day’s edition 27:1:1975 also has an article of significance, ‘Aust Day: Ethnic groups play role’ (p3). The text states, ‘(F)or the first time Australia’s migrant population will take part in the celebrations. Fifteen ethnic dance groups will perform and lead dancing activities in the Rocks.’ This represents an important change to the discourse as migrants are being acknowledged as important contributors to the nation. The enonce of ‘ethnic’ has entered the discourse. The discourse again shifts to accommodate the role of migrants to the economic, political and cultural development of Australia. The belief that non-white migrants are not part of Australia’s past, present and future is now excluded from the discourse. The text from the 1976 edition is drawn from comments quoted within the editorial entitled, ‘Public Service?’ The text reports that a recipient of an Australia Day award stated that, ‘We haven’t been here too long.’ Although historically correct for whites the statement uses the word ‘We’. As an enunciative modality it authorises the perception that Australia was vacant before the arrival of whites. It is another manifestation of power/knowledge and demonstrates the normative thinking on relations of power between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous at this time. This maintains the idea of silence on Aboriginal history and places whites at the centre of Australian history. It is another example of thoughts that are constrained by deep discursive structures beyond the control of many individual citizens. The 1977 text of significance is the article ‘105,000 on the dole’. This article states the number of citizens of New South Wales on unemployment benefits in the headline. This text is important because it acknowledges that unemployment is growing and suggests that poverty is on the increase. This text challenges Thompson’s (2001b) suggestions on egalitarianism and casts aside ideas of race to focus on growing concerns over employment. The economy is foregrounded in this text as the determinant of a citizen’s worth rather than their racial background as has been evidenced in the archive to this point. Foucault (1988) sees this inequality as an effect of capitalism. This is an

151 important watershed in the discourse as from this time a fear of unemployment and poverty become part of the tradition of citizenship discourse. This indicates the commencement of an emerging citizenship practice which I have labelled in the dissertation as enterprise citizenship. In the following days’ edition on the 27/1/77 ‘PM warns against greed during Aust Day speech’ states that, ‘(P)eople expect higher wages, no matter what the consequences for the economy, and the effect on other people…They fail to point out that other weaker groups must suffer to pay for their demands …if one group gets more, other, weaker groups must get less. One group most affected by this process is the unemployed. Higher demands for wages have been satisfied at their expense.’ The Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser moves the discourse to a position of social justice by acknowledging the problem of greed and how it affects the growing numbers of unemployed. He is suggesting that individual need should be forsaken for the good of the community. This text suggests that the concept of egalitarianism is showing the first signs of being dismantled and that Fraser is attempting to stop this happening while he is the leader of the country. Root (2007) calls this emerging type as ‘self-interested citizenship’. This is another example from the discourse of the process of Foucault’s (1981) ‘rarefaction’ that demonstrates the embedding of new traditions within the discourse. The text from the edition of 27/1/78 ‘Governor-General, PM urge national unity’ (p3) states that, ‘(I)n an obvious reference to Australia’s army of unemployed, Mr Fraser then said “The next thing we can do is show more care for each other … and a greater concern for the disadvantaged and underprivileged. It is too easy to take the selfish attitude that the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves is the Government’s problem.’ The Prime Minister is again using the national day to promote social justice and community mindedness as a way of overcoming poverty and disadvantage in society. He contends that attitudes and values will improve the lot of the disadvantaged. He is attempting to shift the discourse to remind citizens of their duty to each other as a community rather than expecting the government to solve all social and economic problems. In other words power to change society does not simply flow from the government as all parts of a society have power to change. This aligns with Foucault

152 (1980) who states that power is dispersed throughout society and that individuals are not only an effect of power but are also the vehicles of power (p. 98). The 1979 text of significance is ‘Teacher awarded grant to help senior students’ (p2). The text reports on a $12,000 Schools Commission grant being awarded to Mr Harnwell the ‘science master’ from Macarthur Girls High to encourage vocational and community education at the school. Harnwell is quoted as saying, ‘(B)ecause of the unemployment situation, some returned to school for only one extra year or just until they found a job. Many were not academically inclined, yet had to do courses of an academic nature.’ The text reminds citizens of a crisis in employment prospects for young school leavers and that knowledge needs to be tailored to students interested in vocational learning otherwise education practices could hinder equality of opportunity for non- academic students. This understanding assists to embed the idea that due to the changing nature of the Australian economy all citizens need to have specific skills related to a rapidly changing world. Citizens need to show that they can apply greater enterprise in their lives than past generations. This process of ‘rarefaction’ continues to embed the idea from 1977 that citizens must develop a skill or produce knowledge to be effective citizens in the changing society. The text of significance from 1980 is the editorial ‘Australia Day’ (p6). It is concerned about a possible fragmentation of Australian society by ‘… the transformation of Australia into a multiracial society. Diversity is no bad thing … provided it exists in a context of unity… to assert that our society can become distorted, divided and weakened if there is not also a realistic emphasis on all that we have in common, an identity transcending differences.’ It suggests that non-British immigrants in Australia have the potential to fragment the country. The editorial had in the previous paragraph discussed how an economic and geographic fragmentation could arise from the growth of the Western Australian economy. The next paragraph having already established a link in the reader’s mind with the possibility of fragmentation then discusses the new potential source of fragmentation by our new ‘multiracial society’. In this text migrants therefore are not to be trusted by the dominant white population. Migrants could break the country into various parts with a possible social fragmentation of Australia. The language of crisis is used to shift the discourse to authorise the view that migrants should be feared. This

153 aligns with the research of van Dijk (1985; 1991) and Manning (2004; 2006; 2007). This assists in migrants becoming ‘the other’ (Said 2003).

5.4.3 Relations of power between Aboriginal Australians and whites 1981 - 1988 From 1981 – 1988 the discourse shifts to problematise the relations of power between Aboriginals and whites with the archive in 1981 permitting normative thought to consider that ‘white settlement’ was the beginning of the end for Aboriginal society and culture. The text Australia Day is today – and most of us couldn’t care less (p7) from 1981 gives a history of Australia Day while acknowledging the role of Aborigines. The discourse continues to shift the discourse where the passage states, ‘… it was not much to celebrate … It was a makeshift ceremony to mark the beginning of the colony and the beginning of the end of Aboriginal Australia.’ The comment ‘the end of Aboriginal Australia’ implicitly acknowledges that Aboriginals were the owners and custodians of Australia before the arrival of the British. If ownership existed before the arrival of the British and this was extinguished by the British no mention of any treaty or compensation to the Aboriginals is discussed or even hinted at in the text. The discourse has transformed to an acknowledgement of a history before whites. It has not moved at this stage to an understanding that through the extinguishment of ownership some form of an acknowledgement through treaty or compensation is necessary for the Aboriginal people. This shows an emerging discourse producing a specific normative thought regarding knowledge of a history before the arrival of whites in Australia. The following day’s edition 27/1/81, What’s this nation all about? Asks Australian of the Year (p.10), reports on Professor Manning Clark who was named as the Australian of the Year. His acceptance speech for the award stated ‘…the three main groups in Australia – British Australians, Aborigines and immigrant or ethnic Australians – still had to try to reach an agreement on what Australia was all about’. In this text the enunciative modality is ‘the three main groups’. In this text Aborigines and migrants are ‘raised’ to the level of whites as according to this authorisation they are one of three main groups in the country. This discourse allows for equality of races. The discourse uses exclusion of false beliefs that is whites are superior to others, to structure

154 the discursive framework. The appeal of the authority of academics is used to shift the discourse and authorise its constant circulation68. The text of significance in the 1982 edition is a letter to the editor, ‘Private schools should go public’. It highlights an economic division in Australian society represented in better educational opportunities for private school students as compared to government school students. The letter states, ‘(T)he sheltered cricket pitches, rugger fields and heated swimming pools that lurk so seductively behind high walls should now be thrown open…’ By doing so it questions the nature of egalitarianism and fairness in society. The text of significance in the 1983 edition is ‘Mrs Muriel Stewart, OAM, with some of the family’ which appears on the front page. It has an accompanying photograph of Mrs Muriel Pearl Stewart of La Perouse with members of her family. She was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to Aboriginal welfare. She was also an original member of the Aboriginal Advisory Council which reported to the NSW Government. The text states, ‘(A)ll I wanted to do was to help other Aborigines… I don’t agree with everything the younger, more radical Aborigines say … but I think they are doing a great job for Aborigines. I can understand why some of them feel so bitter because many Aborigines especially in the country towns have had a very rough time.’ This text foregrounds the achievements of Mrs Stewart and also Aboriginal bitterness towards their treatment by whites. The discursive framework is changed with a new term ‘radical Aborigines’ coming into the discourse of citizenship. It suggests that younger Aborigines will be more ‘political’ than their elders and will agitate more strongly for positive change to receive social, economic and political equality. This is a discontinuous discursive event as this is the first time that an Aboriginal voice is an authority on relations between Aborigines and whites. Previously the discourse would only allow whites to comment on race relations between whites and Aborigines. The use of the minority voice of Aboriginals as being an authorised voice is a strategy that Foucault (1971a) identified as a factor that keeps discourses in circulation and in existence. On the following day 27/1/83 ‘Sir Ninian pleads for the poor in a rich land’ (p.3) states that the Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen stated that far too many Australians

68 see Foucault (1971) The Orders of Discourse and Power/Knowledge (1980).

155 live in poverty and that, ‘… those Australians who are now living in poverty should be no less well provided for than the rest of us.’ This enunciative modality acknowledges that a belief in egalitarianism has not stopped those living in poverty having fewer opportunities than others. The growing internal discursive constraint of a belief in the dismantling of egalitarianism first evidenced in 1977 has become a discursive rarefaction. Foucault (1971a; 1980) sees the rarefaction of discourse as part of the circulation of the discourse. The article also mentions that the Federal Government had announced a $166 million program over the next five years to help celebrate the 1988 bicentennial celebrations. The text states that this money will fund a series of national and international activities including an inquiry into school studies to ensure the deeper appreciation of Australian history and a nationwide program of Aboriginal involvement in the bicentenary. The text states that no Aborigines were among the dignitaries invited to the Australia Day ceremony at Macquarie Place in 1983. ‘The only faces to be seen were those of a group of young Aboriginal land rights demonstrators who tried to disrupt the ceremony.’ The text includes a photograph of an Aboriginal Australian attempting to set up a tent “embassy” outside the Botanic Gardens, Sydney. This is an important text because it foregrounds concerns about poverty and juxtaposes a nationwide program of Aboriginal involvement in the bicentenary with the comment that no Aborigines were among the dignitaries invited to the Australia Day ceremony at Macquarie Place. Significantly the text mentions that a young Aboriginal land rights demonstrator tried to disrupt the ceremony. The discourse is foregrounding Aboriginal land rights and the possibility of a growing political movement of radical Aborigines who are prepared to protest for their land rights and for greater equality. This is also discontinuous as this is the first time that Aboriginal Australians are mentioned as ‘young Aboriginal land rights demonstrators’ and that as no Aborigines were among the dignitaries invited to the Australia Day ceremony at Macquarie Place the text suggests that this is another example of what is now understood as white racism but at the time seemingly sanctioned by deep discursive structures that allow Aboriginal history and culture to be ignored. The text Land rights ‘beyond debate’ (p2) from the 1984 edition states that Charles Perkins the chairman of the Aboriginal Development Committee believes that the granting of land rites and the protection of sacred sites are of such vital importance that

156 they are beyond debate. He describes Aboriginal affairs in Australia as ‘a national disgrace’. Again the discourse is shifting to acknowledge the treatment by whites of Aboriginals as ‘a national disgrace’. This is a return to the language of 1953 when Dr. Babbage called the treatment of Aboriginals as a ‘scandal’. The use of the word ‘disgrace’ is an enonce which promotes the reality of the dispossession and segregation of Aboriginals as an important fact of history and places this knowledge back onto the political spectrum. Importantly as in the 1983 edition it foregrounds the Aboriginal voice as an authority on Aboriginal concerns69. The last text A farce of a day, says Blainey (p2) adds to Charles Perkins’ position through an authorisation by the historian Professor Geoffrey Blainey. He states that,‘ … remembering that Australia possessed a human history stretching back at least 50,000 years … a neutral day would be chosen for all Australians. .. January 26 … proclaimed the land as having only a short history.’ In this text Blainey reminds non-Indigenous Australians that there was an Indigenous history before the arrival of the British. By implication this history is linked to ownership of the land. The text allows for the acknowledgement of Indigenous history as a way of transforming the relations of power between Indigenous and non-Indigenous. The following day’s edition (27:1:84) has a front page text What the Lady said to the new Australian where Mr Gary Foley director of the Aboriginal Arts Board of the Australia Council said that asking Aborigines to celebrate the landing of the First Fleet was, ‘like asking the Jews to celebrate the birth of the Third Reich’. This statement equates the dispossession of Aboriginals with the genocidal policies of the Nazis. The text authorises thinking that pushes the discourse to view the unequal relations of power between Indigenous and whites as genocidal. This is significant for the discourse as recorded in this newspaper as it is the first time that the words ‘genocide’ and ‘genocidal’ have been used to explain to readers the effects of white dispossession on Indigenous populations. It maintains the use of the ‘the Aboriginal voice’ as an authorised voice which commenced in 1983. In this system of thought the discursive framework allows Aborigines to be authorities in their own affairs and in their concerns with others.

69 see Foucault 1971 The Orders of Discourse.

157 Figure 6.4 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the archive from 1976-1985

1976-1985

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Years

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 White 2.5 1 1021.5000 0 Indigenous 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5023 1 Migrant 0 0 0100000 0 Poverty 0 2 0101000 0 Equality 0 0 0000100 0

In the supplement of the 1985 edition, the text, ‘Australia’s Birthday. How to make one day suit us all’, states that, ‘(T)he white party is planned, but will the blacks come? How to encourage the black population to celebrate what is to them an insignificant or even infamous day poses a delicate problem’. The text acknowledges that the quest for Aboriginal equality is understood and needs to be addressed and as normative thinking is now a socially acceptable discursive boundary. This text uses the enonce ‘blacks’ to define Aboriginality. This change is the first time the enonce ‘blacks’ appears in the archive. Its effect is to dehumanise Aboriginals. It separates them as distinct from ‘whites’ and is a form of othering. The article lists claims for Aboriginal equality by the Canberra based Aboriginal Development Commission (p6) who states that, ‘(O)ne of the

158 priorities of this Government has been to empower traditionally powerless groups – women, Aboriginal Australians and ethnic groups stated David Armstrong general manager of the bicentennial authority’ (p 6). In the 1986 edition, ‘The selling of Australia day’ (p13) the text uses a number of opinions to explain why Australians do not appear to be patriotic. The magistrate Ms Pat O’Shane was chosen to present the Aboriginal viewpoint on this matter. The text acknowledges the contribution Aboriginals have made to all areas of society by placing O’Shane’s position as an authority figure within the discourse. In this way the discourse reminds whites that Aboriginals can be members of the judiciary and can make rulings that impact on whites and others. This is the first example from the archive where an Aboriginal is in a legal position of power to make judgements on members of society both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. This continues the practice started in 1983 where Aboriginals are permitted to express negative opinions about Australia’s invasion by whites. In the 1987 edition the text ‘Australia: slayer of the giant of ‘British philistinism’’(p3) quotes the final words of the six volume History of Australia by Professor Manning Clark who states Australians have, “… slain the giant of British philistinism,” that the nation has become a much more diverse society with its mixture of Aboriginal, European and Asian influences. According to Clark, ‘…Australians were moving into a post-Christian, post-enlightenment era. “For the first time we have a real chance to make our own history. We have a chance to create a society based on genuine equality, without restrictions on civil liberty.” The most puzzling historical point left to Professor Clark is, ‘(W)hy, when Australians think of themselves as egalitarian and sometimes radical, do they turn conservative when faced with a showdown?’ He believes the, ‘… answer is because most Australians are immigrants or descendants of immigrants interested in acquiring property…’ His greatest regret is that he, ‘… did not write more about the Aborigines and make more of the role of women in history’. This text questions Australia’s egalitarianism and promotes the view that it is an unequal society in terms of sexual and racial concerns. The following day’s edition on 27/1/87 ‘Advance Australia – and fair go’ (p.5) reports on a demonstration of interest with the lead story of ‘10 Aborigines gathered at

159 Mrs Macquaries Chair to declare 1987 as a year of mourning. Under a black, red, and orange banner announcing “Australia Day – Invasion Day. 1988. What’s there to celebrate?… Mrs Meagher said the group was holding a vigil to commemorate those Aboriginals who died when Australia was first “invaded” in 1788.’ By placing the inverted commas around the word invaded the text is suggesting that the enonce used by Mrs Meagher was factually incorrect and that a more appropriate word should be used to describe what happened on 26 January 1788. The statement, ‘Australia Day – Invasion Day. 1988’ places Indigenous concerns at the centre of the preparations for the 200th anniversary of the white invasion and dispossession of Indigenous communities. The statement succinctly asks What’s there to celebrate? This question has the effect of splitting the discourse and calling into question the policies that have been implemented by whites that have contributed to Indigenous suffering. Importantly it is the first time that the word ‘invaded’ or ‘invasion’ has been used in the archive. This represents a continuation of using the minority voice of Aboriginals as an external mechanism to change the discursive structure. The year 1988 represents the 200th anniversary of the white invasion and the dispossession of Indigenous communities. To white groups within Australia it represents the 200th anniversary of the establishment of a British penal colony in Sydney, NSW. The first text from this edition is the editorial ‘Reflections on Nation Building’ which discusses that, ‘… there is one great unsettled issue: the relations between European and Aboriginal Australia. The Bicentenary has focused world attention on the plight of Australia’s Aborigines … Race relations and the conditions of Aboriginal life in many of our country towns are outrageous. The relationship between Aboriginal and white Australia is the greatest historical problem still to be resolved by this country….Only when Australians are reconciled with this aspect of their past, will the process of building a genuine Australian culture be credible.’ The editorial gives a historical perspective by quoting from the 1888 Sydney Morning Herald editorial and then discusses how Australia is economically and socially connected to Asia. Secondly, it points out that Australia cannot move forward as a nation until Australia makes peace with itself through acknowledging the wrongs of the past those being the treatment of Aboriginals by whites. This text continues with the theme that the relations of power between whites and

160 Indigenous are ‘outrageous’. The relations have previously been described as ‘a scandal’ (1953) ‘a national disgrace’ (1984) and now ‘outrageous’ (1988). This position is authorised within the discourse and this view continues to permit the assertion that the treatment of the Indigenous has been and continues to be racist. The next text of significance Black leaders row over Redfern protest march (p2) discusses a dispute amongst Aboriginal leaders from around the country. They were trying to resolve a dispute over Australia Day protests. It also mentions that the Secretary of the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs Charles Perkins who, ‘… may take part in the march from Redfern was recently rebuked by his Minister, Mr Hand, over his call for curbs on Asian immigration. Personality clashes between Aboriginal leaders are being blamed as a barrier to resolving differences over marches…’ This text can be considered to continue a process of othering commenced in 1985 through the use of the enonce ‘Black’ to describe Aboriginals. By using the word ‘black’ the enunciative modality dehumanises Aboriginals and with the word ‘protest’ in the same headline it ‘others’ Aboriginals who were simply participating in a democratic right bestowed on all citizens. This is consistent with practices in the findings of van Dijk (1985; 1991; 1997a) that saw othering as an institutional force to allow racism to seem natural and acceptable.

5.4.4 Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 - 1996 The fourth period identified in the archive from 1989 – 1996 shows a discursive shift from Aboriginal race relations with whites to relations between whites and Asian immigrants. This period also includes a focus on the nature of egalitarianism and the responsibilities of citizenship. In the 1989 edition the text Sir Ninian gives the pot a final stir is a report on the Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephen’s farewell address in which he attempts to counter the Federal Opposition leader Mr Howard’s comments on multiculturalism. In 1988 Mr Howard had called multiculturalism ‘aimless and divisive’. The text reports that, ‘Mr Howard also said he objected to multiculturalism because it ran the risk of promoting separate cultural and political development and promoting ‘duality’’. This text in effect authorises two opposing positions on multiculturalism within the discourse. The Governor General’s view that multiculturalism was a policy that would help Australia

161 grow was contrasted with the position of the Federal Opposition Leader John Howard who believed it to be socially divisive. Whereas the focus of the 1988 edition was on Aboriginal concerns this edition through the reporting of authorised voices has shifted the discourse to concerns over Asian migrants. Within the one text the alternate positions on multiculturalism both ‘permit’ and ‘prohibit’ it within the discourse of citizenship. According to Foucault (1971a; 1980) this strategy assists in the circulation of discourse. In the edition from 27:1:90 the text A question of destiny hides behind a day of celebration (p.4) includes a large photograph of Mrs Kouk Luang an 81 year old refugee from Cambodia. The text is a biography of Mrs Kouk Luang who arrived in Broome as a refugee from Cambodia with 26 others, ‘… three weeks ago. They spent four weeks in a little boat.’ The article states that, ‘Australian immigration officials are working out whether she should be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds or be sent back to Cambodia.’ This text is of significance as it links with the theme of ‘a fear of Asian hordes’ descending on Australia as presented to citizens during the late 1940s to the 1950s as seen in the media texts analysed in this study. This 1990 text utilises the enonce ‘refugee’ for the first time. The enonce ‘refugee’ was used to describe people in Mrs Luang’s situation. The enonce ‘refugee’ from 1990 can be considered a factual position which allows the justice system to determine whether in fact these people are ‘illegal’. In the 1991 edition the text Celebrations will be on same day for first time (p6) states that, ‘(T)oday, for the first time, all Australians will celebrate the birth of the nation on the same day.’ This statement is an enunciative modality because it recommends all Australians to celebrate ‘the birth of the nation…’ It silences opposition by not mentioning the 250 Indigenous nations and distinct language groups on the Australian continent at the time of the arrival of the First Fleet. This text denies the rights of Aboriginals to ownership of the continent of Australia and prohibits a history before the arrival of whites. Through use of prohibition or exclusion the discourse is maintained. The next text of significance 1988 and all that: what difference did it make? (p9) reports on the publication of the book The Bicentennial Affair by Denis O’Brien who argues, ‘… the only real debate was about immigration and multiculturalism. Aborigines seized the chance to have their case aired, but have since dropped off the national agenda. The same social problems and divisions still exist …’ This text authorises the

162 position that Aboriginal concerns for equality have been backgrounded by immigration and multiculturalism. In this way it authorises continued discussion of immigration and multiculturalism at the expense of Aboriginal calls for equality. This is an example of dominations within discourse replacing each other as part of ‘the tactical polyvalence of discourses’ (Foucault 1998a). The text of significance from the edition of 27/1/92 states, ‘Liberal plan to punish non-citizens’ (p.1) reports that the, ‘Federal Opposition believes immigrants should be taking Australian citizenship more seriously, and is considering a number of plans that could dramatically affect non-citizens entitlements. Dr Hewson stated “We are looking at the issue of citizenship and the requirements and responsibilities of citizenship as well as the privileges.”’ This is an example of a rupture in the discourse as it is the first text analysed in the period that views citizenship as an ‘issue’. It is also the first text that promotes, ‘… the requirements and responsibilities of citizenship’. In this text citizenship is problematised and the opposition leader is proposing a solution to this problem. He states that more emphasis should be given to responsibilities in order to solve this ‘issue’. Foucault (2001) calls this type of enonce a ‘problematisation’ as the discourse is kept in circulation by individuals or institutions that ‘problematise’ knowledge previously understood as unproblematic. In 1993 the text ‘January 26 and Australia’s Day’ states that, ‘(A) certain empathy with descendants of the first inhabitants of this land who view the date with pain and sorrow, not joy and pride, has convinced others…’ that it is an inappropriate choice of days. The text gives a history of Australia Day and promotes the idea that such a day should be called ‘Federation Day’ and celebrated on January 1. The editor quotes from historian Professor Frank Crowley’s text A New History of Australia which states that, ‘…Australia was not a ‘nation-state’ because its citizens had no experience of loyalty to a single national government.’ This national government only came into existence in 1901. This text is significant because it transmits the view that Australia Day is a day of pain for Aboriginals. This revives the Aboriginal position from the early 1980s but is transformational as it is the first time that such a view is expressed in an editorial. As an enunciative modality it permits empathy and compassion to be expressed by whites about Aboriginal policy which also appears in 1949, 1953, 1969, 1984, 1988 and here in 1993

163 but is silenced in other years. This silence is what Foucault (1998) calls ‘… a shelter for power, anchoring its prohibitions’ (p. 101). The text A celebration of our hidden history (p3) states that, ‘(T)his was the most Australian Australia Day. This was a bright shining day for Australian Aborigines…Mr Mandawuy Yunupingu…was presented … with the 1992 Australian of the Year Award.’ ‘However, this is the International Year for the World’s Indigenous People, and never before have Australian Aborigines been so well represented in National Australia Day Council awards. … The Prime Minister (Paul Keating) said of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders: “We are determined to end two centuries of discrimination and injustice. The response since spelling out these ambitions in Redfern Park two months ago convinces me that the great majority of Australians are committed to them too.” The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Mr Tickner, later urged Australians to consider the country’s “hidden history”: “Australia Day is as much a day for celebrating the survival of Australia’s indigenous peoples as it is for commemorating the arrival of Captain Phillip.” This text transmits the view that Australia Day can be inclusive of Aboriginal people through an understanding of what until this point has been a ‘hidden history’. The theme of inequality, racism and dispossession run strongly through this text. This text acknowledges the previous prohibitions regarding the transmission of knowledge about Aboriginal history. The use of the enonce ‘hidden history’ is a manifestation of understandings of power/knowledge. The text from 1994 ‘The Inevitable Republic’ gives a historical reason how the Australian colonies remained a constitutional monarchy. It states, ‘No British king or queen ever meddled in the affairs of the Australian colonies.’ The editorial sees the current republican debate as a historic moment. Importantly it states that the monarchy is irrelevant, ‘… for most young Australians and for … citizens whose heritage is not British… the exclusiveness which monarchies must foster … rest in stark contrast to the casualness and the sense of egalitarianism that pervades the Australian character.’ The theme of ‘egalitarianism’ and the specific enonce are examples of othering non-whites. If egalitarianism pervades the Australian character it was not manifested in the policies and practices of democratically elected governments that continued dispossession and segregation of Aboriginal communities and the exclusion of non-white races under the

164 White Australia Policy. The idea of ‘the fair go’ was not extended to Aboriginal communities. By defining an Australian character the text manifests relations of power through the use of exclusion. This is done through positioning a perceived characteristic of white Australia that dominates and silences attributes of Indigenous peoples and migrant Australia.70 The following day’s text from 27/1/94 titled New citizenship law is unfair (p.13) discusses the ‘1993 Citizenship Amendment Act which took effect this week. It prescribes a pledge of commitment to Australia and fellow Australians to be sworn at citizenship ceremonies.’ The text authorises the position that a pledge of commitment to the nation is unfair in the new global world. The article points out that, ‘(I)n an increasingly “international” world, strict rules concerning exclusivity of citizenship can restrict Australian participation.’ The text suggests a more fluid form of citizenship as more appropriate in the international world. This text hints at a growing tension between the political concerns of the nation and the changing geo-political reality of the as yet fully understood globalisation.71 Also on this day 27/1/94 ‘Make it great, don’t waste it, says PM’ (p.4) ‘Warning against those who were already saying the unemployed should be forgotten, Mr Keating said: “This must not be a recovery for some and not others. It must not be a top-end-of- town recovery.” The text authorises an empathy towards those who are unemployed by quoting from the Prime Minister Paul Keating. By doing so it transmits the view that the impact of unemployment and poverty should be part of social understandings of citizenship. The 1995 text Howard’s day of triumph (p.1) supports John Howard’s leadership of the Liberal Party. The text repeats his apology to the Asian community in Australia by stating that, ‘… he must convince them that he understands the profound social changes which are occurring in Australian society. He has begun this process already by stating publicly that his comments about Asian immigration (in 1988) were wrong, not just unfortunate.’ The text authorises the position that Howard’s earlier comments on Asian

70 For further discussion of this use of silence see Foucault, The History of Sexuality. 71 see Ong’s (1999) Flexible Citizenship for a complete discussion of this from an Asian-American perspective.

165 immigration to Australia were racist. In an effort to do this it repeats the enunciative modality that ‘Asian immigration is too great’. This text highlights an emerging tension between those who permit racism and those who prohibit it within the discourse of citizenship.

Figure 6.5 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the archive from 1986-1995

1986-1995

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Years

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 White 0.333 0.666 1 0.5 2 1 1 0.5 1 1 Indigenous 0.333 0.666 4.5 0.5 0 1.5 0 2.5 0 0 Migrant 0.3331.666 0.5 200.5000 1 Poverty 0 0 0 000000 0 Equality 00.333 0 000001 0

The following day 27/1/95 includes the text ‘Racial remarks still haunt new leader’. This text repeats Howard’s position on immigration from 1988 where he stated, ‘I believe that Asian migration is … too great.’ Howard had apologised for the remark but believed the comment had been taken out of context. Similar to the previous day’s article ‘Howard’s day of triumph’ it highlights a growing polarity within the discourse of

166 citizenship about what is permissible and what is prohibited to say about Asian migration to Australia. This polarity within discourse or discursive ‘polysemia’ is addressed by Foucault (1989:123). It is this polysemic transmission that is a feature of the discourse from this point until 2007. The 1996 text Right concept, wrong day reports on a speech by The Moderator of the Uniting Church’s NSW Synod, the Rev. Dr. Dean Drayton who called for a boycott of Australia Day ceremonies on the basis that they fail to recognise the suffering caused to Aboriginal people by the European settlement. In the text he suggests a different date to 26 January. He quotes from The Aborigines Progressive Association, who in 1938, claimed that January 26 is ‘… not a day of rejoicing for Australia’s Aborigines: it is a day of mourning’. The association said that January 26 commemorates “… 150 years of misery and degradation imposed upon the native inhabitants by the white invaders of this country”. This text highlights a growing authorisation that permits the belief that the Aboriginal perspective on Australia Day must be acknowledged. The text ‘Battlers’ children now underclass, says our leading citizen’ (p.5) from 27/1/96 reports on comments made by the Australian of the Year Dr John Yu who stated that children of low-paid parents have become a new underclass. The enunciative modality authorises an acknowledgement of poverty in a land of prosperity and suggests that egalitarianism is withering away.

5.4.5 The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 - 2007 The fifth and last period in the study, from 1997-2007 refocusses the discourse on Aboriginal race relations while at the same time allowing resistant voices. This period in particular shows the polysemous nature of discourse. Enonces in 1997 such as ‘appalling state of Aboriginal health’ are contrasted with ‘no need to apologise to Aborigines’. In particular this period sees the struggle of dominations while also showing the full emergence of enterprise citizenship. In the 1997 texts, Advance Australia where? (p38) and Don’t worry, be happy: enjoy the barbecue (p39) the ambiguities of Australia Day are discussed. Both texts suggest that citizens should be relaxed about Australia’s history and simply enjoy the holiday. In ‘(D)on’t worry, be happy: enjoy the barbecue’ a Balmain barman Marcus

167 Hardwicke states, ‘I’m one of the first generations in my family to really be living in a multicultural Australia. The world comes to me here at The London’. Both authorise the benefits of living in a multicultural Australia and permit a forgetting of the past in order that Australia can move forward. This aligns with Foucault (1981) where exclusion assists the continuing circulation of the discourse. In Qualities that make Australians special (p39) the text quotes from the Prime Minister John Howard’s Australia Day message. He states that, ‘(O)urs is a society which draws strength from the diversity of its origins. From the very first settlers, each migrant group has made its own, unique contribution to the tapestry of Australian society today…harmonious blending of people of different racial background.’ This enunciative modality has no mention of Aboriginals or their contribution to Australian life. It prohibits an acknowledgement of the Aboriginal contribution to Australia while permitting an acknowledgement of the contributions of migrant groups. The use of the word ‘settler’ contributes to a belief that Australia was not invaded and that there were no confrontations between whites and Indigenous. The word ‘settled’ as an enonce suggests that the country was peacefully established. This is another example of the silencing of Aboriginal history and is consistent with Foucault’s (1998) theories on the use of silence and prohibitions within discourse. The edition from 27/1/97 Don’t apologise, PM tells us (p.1) a front-page article, reports on the contrasting Australia Day speeches made by the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. The PM told Australians there was no need to apologise for the past because it had been a role model of tolerance since European settlement. This contrasted with the Governor-General’s Sir William Deane’s position when he stated, ‘… the nation would enter the next century diminished if genuine reconciliation was not achieved with its indigenous population’. The article states Howard’s position as, ‘(W)hile Australia had stains and injustices in its past and underprivilege remained, the “balance sheet” was extraordinarily positive’. The text states that the Governor General’s speech focused on the appalling state of Aboriginal health. He called it a tragic story of sickness, suffering, dying and death of fellow Australians when the life expectancy of an Aboriginal baby is not comparable to that of a non-Aboriginal one. He also stated that genuine reconciliation must be achieved by 2001. Governor General Deane’s speech also

168 discussed multiculturalism by stating that, “The essence of that multiculturalism is mutual respect and tolerance for all our different cultural, ethnic, national and religious backgrounds and lawful practices.” This text highlights a division in the discourse between two authorities, the Prime Minister and the Governor General on Aboriginal inequality while showing an agreement on the value of multiculturalism. Thus the discourse both permits and prohibits thinking that Aboriginals have been and continue to be racially discriminated against while permitting the view that multiculturalism contributes to the progress of Australia. This again shows the polysemous nature of the discourse clearly evidenced from 1995 and continuing in 1997. Additionally this is the first time the enonce of ‘reconciliation’ has been used in the discourse. The enonce ‘reconciliation’ was used by the Governor General in the belief that whites needed to pursue words and deeds to improve the conditions of Aboriginal populations. This use of the enonce ‘reconciliation’ came five months after his landmark speech at the inaugural Vincent Lingiari72 lecture in Darwin. The parliaments of Australia were called upon by the Governor General to affirm their support for reconciliation. This was to be done through a commitment by the states and its peoples to the process of Aboriginal reconciliation through the passing of formal resolutions. For instance, this was done in the NSW Legislative Assembly in November 1996 under the leadership of Premier Bob Carr (Parliament, NSW, 1997). In the 27/1/98 edition the text Hanson attack ‘ugly’, says PM’ (p.1) states that ‘The Prime Minister yesterday accused Mrs Pauline Hanson (Independent MP) of making “stupid, ugly and divisive” comments after she claimed the selections of an Aborigine and a Vietnamese Australian of the year were politically motivated … (and) were part of a push to “Asianise” Australia.’ The text also reports on the Australia Day address by the Governor-General, Sir William Deane, who called for ‘genuine goodwill’ so that reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians could occur by 2001. He regarded reconciliation as, ‘… essential if we are not to enter our second century as a diminished nation.’ Again these texts highlight the growing divisive nature

72 See the Citizenship Timeline ‘1966’ on page xiv of this dissertation regarding the significance ‘Vincent Lingiari’ and the Indigenous struggle for equal rights and land rights.

169 of the discourse of citizenship as a form of polysemia where authorities can both permit and prohibit racially divisive comments. In the 1999 text A vision for Australia (p.14) the reasons why Australia should become a republic are discussed. This includes the following comments, ‘(T)he monarchy is a symbol appropriate to the nation’s infancy. It is no longer an authentic symbol of Australia in its maturity as a nation… As a symbol it is associated with the values of social hierarchy, exclusion and formality that could hardly be more opposed to the egalitarianism, acceptance and casualness so many Australians cherish in their own society’. In this text the theme of egalitarianism is transmitted in the discourse without an acknowledgement that historically it is associated with how whites have imagined they have treated each other. From this deep discursive structure Australians are ‘white’ and ‘egalitarianism and acceptance’ become a racially based system of exclusion that assists whites to remain in unequal relations of power. In the 2000 text Let’s enjoy our national identity (p23) the social commentator Hugh MacKay does not mention the Indigenous in his article. He states, ‘… the truth is that, in 2000, Australia is showing the world how to create and sustain a diverse and harmonious society … we’re the world’s shiniest example of a “have-a-go” society. We cheer for the underdog because we’ve been there, most of us, through our own cultural or family heritage: convicts, rejects, refugees, émigrés from cultures where, for one reason or another, we or our forebears didn’t fit comfortably enough to stay’. Through a technique of silencing Aboriginal history the enunciative modality prohibits the view that Aboriginals were maltreated by the British invaders and subsequent government policies. This aligns with Foucault (1980; 1998) who sees the strategy of silence as a fundamental force in the circulation of discourse. The following day’s (27:1:00) text Howard urges to move on reconciliation (p.1) reports on the Governor-General, Sir William Deane seeking national consensus on a draft reconciliation document by the Reconciliation Council. The Governor General wants the Prime Minister to use the draft document to promote reconciliation with Aboriginals. This text highlights the ongoing division in the discourse between authorities that both permit and prohibit a belief in racial discrimination.

170 The 2001 text ‘This Australia Day’ quotes from Young Australian of the Year Dr Bryan Gaesnsler who states, ‘(O)ne of the real paradoxes of our culture is that many Australians are indeed totally tolerant of foreigners and welcoming of immigrants but at the same time are dismissive, unsympathetic or just plain racist when it comes to their attitudes towards indigenous Australians…it seems somehow acceptable by many Australians to regard indigenous people as somehow inferior.’ This text is significant because it acknowledges that racism is rampant within the discourse of citizenship, not against migrants but against Indigenous Australians. This is the first use of the word ‘indigenous’ in the discourse. The text uses the lower case ‘i’ rather than a capital ‘I’ for Indigenous as was previously the case for the enonce ‘Aboriginals’ prior to 1969. In the text After two centuries, still strangers in our own land (p16) Geoff Clark the chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is quoted as saying, ‘(W)e have chosen instead to commemorate this day by celebrating what has survived of our culture since European colonisation … Two terrible defects weaken the foundations of the modern Australian nation laid in 1901: the inequality wrought by racism and the suppression of our true history … During the colonisation of Australia, no treaties or agreements were negotiated with the first Australians … they are in a state of denial about the true history of what they call settlement.’ This text authorises the view that racism and the suppression of history, that is knowledge of the past, has caused a denial by whites of white aggression, dispossession, segregation and genocide against Indigenous communities. This text is significant because it moves the discourse to a greater acknowledgement of what whites did to Aboriginals and how they used relations of power to suppress historical truth. In the 2002 text Free the children: Labor’s backflip (p.1) the enonce of ‘refugee’ has been replaced by ‘asylum seekers’73. This enunciative modality suggests that to receive asylum a person must seek permission from recognised authorities. This transmits the view that those who have a power to grant ‘asylum’ make the seeker weak in the relations of power between the two parties. It places the onus of responsibility on the

73 The enonce ‘refugee’ is used on the following day’s edition of The Sun Herald. A front-page photograph of a protest at the Woomera Detention Centre by refugees accompanies the article, ‘Cry Freedom’. It states, ‘(A)s our nation celebrated, this refugee hurled himself on to Woomera’s razor wire moments after this picture was taken’.

171 ‘seeker’ whereas the onus of responsibility when the enonce ‘refugee’ is used is on the provider of assistance. This use of the enonce shifts the discursive framework. It encourages normative thinking to accept the view that responsibility lays with the individual not the government to prove the legitimacy of each claim. In the 2002 editorial Day for all Australians (p.26) the Prime Minister John Howard calls for Australians to celebrate Australia Day with, ‘…the legitimate indulgence of some spontaneous national pride.’ The text reports on a belief that tolerance and the notion of the “fair go” are being eroded. The editorial also states that the, ‘… Aboriginal approach to Australia Day has evolved like the day itself … All Australians should accept their history and the day Indigenous Australians can accept it as the day their dispossession … boldly claiming their survival and achievement’. This text has three enonces. The concepts of ‘national pride’, ‘the erosion of the fair go’ and ‘an acceptance of the historical fact of Aboriginal dispossession’ are all explored. This text authorises these enunciative modalities and promotes these as legitimate concerns within the discourse. Additionally this is the first example of the word ‘Indigenous’, being capitalised in the discourse. As an enonce it has the purpose of promoting racial equality and social harmony. The use of the enunciative modality ‘the erosion of the fair go’ is an example of the rarefaction that has embedded the idea that ‘egalitarianism’ is disappearing from Australian society. In the 2003 text ‘Nation has seen worse times than these’ (p11) it states that Australians were facing their most anxious national day in many years due to a number of massive bushfires raging in NSW and Canberra. The NSW Premier, Bob Carr, used history for inspiration, pointing out that the people had survived gloomier Australia Days. Mr Carr said that if he could return to a moment in Australian history it might be the first crossing of the Blue Mountains by Aboriginal Australians74. This text promotes the idea that Aboriginal’s history has been denied to whites and significant historical achievements by Aboriginals were hidden from whites to justify racial theories of superiority (see Said 2005; Manning 2004; van Dijk 1985; 1991).

74 Gregory Blaxland, William Lawson and William Charles Wentworth are usually credited in history texts as the first to cross the Blue Mountains in 1813 rather than the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land.

172 In the following day’s edition (27/1/03) the text A cleansing of the soul where a nation’s songlines meet (p.1) states that, ‘Sydney’s official celebration began at Farm Cove at 8am with an Aboriginal cleansing ceremony, Woggan-Ma-Gule. A few hundred metres away, at Sydney Cove, Arthur Phillip had brought the first white settlers ashore in 1788. In 1888, premier Sir Henry Parkes rejected an idea that something be done for Aborigines as part of centenary celebrations because it would “remind them that we have robbed them”. Yesterday, however, men, women and children of the Garrabarras indigenous dance group sang and danced a welcome to all Australians.’ This text promotes the theme of current unity and historical embarrassment by whites that Aboriginals had been robbed of their land by the invading whites. The enonce of ‘robbed’ is revived to explain the unequal relations of power between whites and Indigenous and their dispossession from traditional lands. This text also features a continuation of the lower case ‘i’ in ‘indigenous’. In the 2004 text ‘A tale of rich and poor, and the growing stretch in between’ (p4) the themes of poverty and egalitarianism are explored. This text reports on a global poll conducted for the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. It found that almost 90 per cent of the 19014 Australians surveyed thought Australia was becoming a less equal society. Andrew McCallum the president of The Australian Council for Social Service stated that, “(T)he values of egalitarianism and ‘a fair go’ should be the subject of informed debate”. The text states that, ‘(T)he survey findings were backed up by tax statistics which showed that the real taxable incomes of the poorest Australians were dropping while those of the richest were rising.’ This text is using an internationally recognised group’s poll on Australian opinions to authorise a belief that egalitarianism and equality were being eroded at this time. This theme has grown in importance since its first appearance in 1977 and a type of tradition has been formed whereby such views have been authorised by various authorities. The discourse permits an understanding of the ending of egalitarianism and equality in Australia. This is an example of what Foucault (1981) calls ‘an internal regulator of discourse’ where the notion of academic discipline is used to exclude ideas and concepts counter to particular studies. In the 2004 text No threat in giving indigenous ways a place in the life of Australia (p15) is a report of comments made by the Aboriginal leader Mick Dodson

173 about the dual nature of Australian society. He states, ‘(S)o what do indigenous Australians have to reflect on? For one thing, we remain the most marginalised and disadvantaged section of the nation…A wealthy First World nation enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity cannot … ignore the plight of the most disadvantaged Australian children. Problems in Aboriginal communities are not simply of Aboriginal peoples’ making. They are contributed to by inept programs that cold- shoulder genuine dialogue between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people and turn an introspective focus on supervising indigenous peoples’ behaviour. These values are subordinated to the continuing thrust of assimilation in this country, which tries to make us into something that we aren’t and denies indigenous aspirations …There must be fundamental constitutional change in this country, and there must be a treaty. This requires matching up indigenous people’s essential cultural and social value systems with those of Australia broadly. What we are talking about here is the survival and sustainability of the world’s oldest living continuous culture. It requires more than indigenous people being assimilated into the middle classes. It takes political will and honest dialogue.’ This text uses the theme of racial discrimination by whites against Aborigines as the basis for its call to understand that the assimilation of Aboriginals into the middle classes will not solve the fundamental issue of Australian history, that is that the first peoples of this land were the Aborigines whose land was removed from them by an invading force which brought destruction and death in its wake which still reverberates to this day. This text continues to authorise the position that far more has to be done to right the wrongs of the past. The text highlights exclusionary practices to demonstrate that not enough has been done by whites to solve the problems of the past and the present. In the 2005 text ‘Time to acknowledge the first people’s rights’ (p13) the historian David Day’s book Conquest: A New History of the Modern World’ is quoted from extensively. It states, ‘(W)hen Captain Arthur Phillip and his officers splashed ashore…They had come to conquer. They had not come to live in an Aboriginal world but to dispossess the Aborigines of their land and compel them to live in a British world.’

174 Figure 6.6 A bar graph of the articles of significance in the archive from 1996-2006

1996-2006

100%

90%

80%

70%

60% Equality Value 50% Poverty Migrant 40% Indigenous White

30%

20%

10%

0% 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Years

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 White 0 1.5 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 4 Indigenous 0.5 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 Migrant 0 2 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 2.5 Poverty 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 2 0 1 Equality 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.5

Further, ‘(R)ather than providing adequate medical, educational and housing facilities, we compel outback Aborigines to wash their faces in return for providing a petrol bowser, thereby implicitly reinforcing the 18th century view of the Aborigines as child- like savages who have to be civilised.’ It states, ‘(W)e watch passively as Aborigines die from preventable diseases and as their societies are ravaged by the physical and psychological consequences of their historic dispossession, while comforting our consciences with the mistaken belief that they are the authors of their own misfortune.’ Further ‘(W)e should be confident enough to recognise Aborigines as the first peoples of this land and to accord them the rights implicit in such status. It has proved to be a most bounteous land. Its riches deserve to be shared more generously with those from whom it was taken.’ As an enunciative modality it thrusts enonces such as ‘conquer’, ‘dispossess’,

175 ‘child like savages’, ‘their societies are ravaged’, ‘historic dispossession’ directly into the mix of the relations of power between whites and Aborigines to highlight the effects of invasion. The text authorises the view that Australia was conquered, its first inhabitants were dispossessed, that whites acted and continue to act out of greed and racism and that more needs to be done to place the relations of power between whites and Aboriginals on an equal footing. In the 2006 text The Australian republic must rise again it states that, ‘… the nation remains torn. It has been that way since November 6, 1999, the day Australians, a majority of whom wanted and expected this country to become a republic, voted in a referendum against the model that was being offered to them. … The simple persistent anomaly that under the monarchy no Australian can ever be Australia’s head of state …’ This text promotes the view that ‘republicanism’ will solve Australia’s national problems. It authorises the view that the republican model of government will allow an Australian to be head of state rather than the British monarch as it currently applies. It further emphasises the continuing constitutional connection between Britain and Australia and that full decolonisation from Britain has not occurred. In the 2006 text ‘A long waiting list for a fix to what ails’ the letter by Ian Rodgers of Campsie states that, ‘My wife is on a waiting list for a public hospital bed…all this when our economy is apparently booming…I can’t help but feel that things should be better than this. But the current leaders seem ignorant about what’s really going on out here. They appear to be satisfied with the mediocrity of inequality. They lack the vision or the passion or the strength of character to make the truly tough decisions. It shouldn’t be this way. Should it?’ This text highlights the growing emphasis on the concept of ‘user pays’ which links with neo-liberalism, heightened individuality and the full emergence of enterprise citizenship. The text highlights that inequality has become entrenched in the health system. This inequality punishes those who are poor and rewards those who are prosperous. In this system of neo-liberalism the rich are seen as virtuous because through their discipline they have become wealthy. The poor on the other hand are not virtuous due to their ill-discipline. In this system of thought neo- liberalism promotes the view that the rich and poor deserve what they end up getting

176 whether in the health system, the education system or the justice system. Fundamentally the rule becomes, citizens should ‘get rich’ or suffer the consequences (Root 2007). The text No hard feelings, chief (p4) is an annotated photograph of the NSW Opposition Leader Peter Debnam and the Police Commissioner Ken Moroney shaking hands at the United Australian Lebanese Movement’s Australia Day award ceremony on January 25. The text states that, ‘(M)r Debnam thanked the movement for its support since the riots while Mr Moroney said the key to racial harmony was communication.’ The text alludes to the Cronulla riot and revenge attack that occurred in December 2005.This event is pivotal to understandings of the reality of ‘race hate’ in Sydney in the new millennium. This text links with ‘Police put on a show of force at flashpoints’ (p. 4) which states that, ‘(A)n extra 1200 police will be guarding against racial trouble at beach suburbs today after supporters of right-wing groups pledged to gather at Cronulla for Australia Day.’ This text authorises the view that racial trouble is unlawful in Australia while also reporting on the concerns of authorities about a repeat of the riots. These texts also link with Plenty of reasons to sing with gusto (p. 11) which discusses the riots from an Asian-Australian perspective. ‘It goes against everything we stand for – “a fair go for all”’. This text authorises the view that Asian-Australians have been assimilated in Australian society while Muslims have created resentment amongst white Australians causing them to riot. This has also been noted by Manning (2006; 2007). The text, Howard aims to make ancient history of modern learning (p5) reports on the Prime Minister’s efforts to construct a history of Australia that aligns with the belief systems of neo-liberal government. The text states, ‘(A) new “coalition of the willing” will be created to investigate how Australian history should be taught in schools and to stem the fall in number of students taking the subject. Mr Howard said that Australia’s “crowning tradition” was its “social cohesion.” Although those involved in the Cronulla riots should meet the “full force of the law”, Mr Howard said it should not result in “either national self-flagellation or moral panic”. This text authorises the view that social cohesion needs to be taught and therefore that knowledge has power to construct behaviour to produce citizens that are fundamental to the requirements of current politics, economics and culture within Australian society.

177 This text Time to confront failures, not ignore them (p. 11) is the first text to specifically use the word ‘Muslim’ in an Australia Day edition. It states that, ‘(T)hanks to an epidemic of similar law and order problems in other Western democracies with Muslim immigrant populations, even left-wing liberals are joining the dots, and question multiculturalism … a welfare driven ideology, corrupted by politicians chasing the ethnic vote, which has encouraged separate identities … The majority of Sydney’s Muslims are law-abiding and anxious for harmony.’ This authorises the view that Muslims in western countries pose law and order issues and its effect is to ‘other’ Muslims75. The text Unity vital in battle against terrorism (p. 11) links to the text Time to confront failures, not ignore them with John Howard stating the teaching of history is important to national unity and the battle against terrorism. The text states, ‘(O)ur social cohesion and national unity is pivotal in enabling Australia to effectively contribute to the international effort to combat terrorism, and to safeguard Australia domestically.’ In this text the teaching of history is pivotal in ‘the war on terror’. A history needs to be constructed, transmitted and received in order that social cohesion and national unity are maintained. In the editorial (27/1/06) John Howard on history it states that,‘(I)t is easy to dismiss the Prime Minister’s criticism of history teaching as a populist rant … Australians know too little of their past – and that inevitably compromises their future.’ This text positions an understanding of history as a way forward for Australians. Knowledge in this example attempts to change normative thinking and behaviour. The text does not deal with how this knowledge will be constructed, transmitted and received. This text also links in with a letter published on 27/1/06 Invasion Day, January 26 (p.10). It states that ‘Aboriginal people are the custodians of this land, the true owners … the majority of Aboriginal people live in poverty’. This text places the Indigenous and the effects of white invasion and colonisation at the centre of the discourse of citizenship. In the 2007 text The flag’s big day out (page ‘a’ wrap-around) an annotated half- page photograph states, ‘(S)howing their pride … 55,000 people turned up for the Big Day Out in Homebush yesterday, many wearing Australian flags. Organisers had asked people to leave the flags at home after problems with people using them as symbols of aggression last year’. This text shows how young Australian music fans responded to a

75 see Said 2005 and Manning 2004; 2006 and 2007.

178 request not to bring Australian flags into the venue. It shows that a form of national pride is strong among the young as they have prohibited others from telling them how to react to Australia Day. The following day’s 27/01/07 edition has a half-page annotated photograph on the front page of the wrap-around of Aboriginal dancers stating, ‘(I)n the beginning…Gadigal dancers at the Royal Botanic Gardens yesterday morning for their traditional ceremonial launch of Sydney’s Australia Day celebrations’. This authorises the view that Aboriginals were the original owners of the land. In the text Nation celebrates triumph over diversity (p. 1-2) the text promotes the view that Australia is a wealthy multicultural nation but that Australia’s prosperity has not trickled down to all elements of society particularly the homeless. In the text Common language comes first: PM (p.2) the Prime Minister Mr. Howard’s view that understanding and using the English language is paramount for migrants and that they should be, ‘…proud of Australia’s history’. Quoting from Mr Howard the text states, ‘(W)e believe… that a person’s worth is determined by their character and by the effort they put in to being a good citizen…’ These examples of the enunciative modalities in the text reiterate previous themes of silence about Australia’s treatment of Aboriginals and that their ‘character’ is determined by their economic state and ability to pay for any required services. In the text ‘Mayor forced Debnam to alter speech’ (p.3) the enonces ‘practical multiculturalism’ and ‘establishment of civics tests for school students’ are used by the NSW Opposition leader Peter Debnam to authorise the view that regular ‘multiculturalism’ has failed. Additionally a testing regime will need to be put in place in schools to control knowledge about Australia’s history and traditions.

5.5 A summary of the discourse in terms of its modalities, transformations and discontinuities This section begins with an Australian citizenship discursive timeline and concludes with a discussion of these modalities, transformations and discontinuities.

The following transformations and discontinuities were found using the methodology displayed in the form of a discursive timeline below.

179 Australian Citizenship Discursive Timeline 1946 – The enonce ‘the aboriginal problem’ appears in the archive. 1947 – ‘Happy, it is said, is the country that has no history’ and ‘Asia is aroused and on the march’ appear in the archive. 1948 – ‘The thronging millions of Asia have been awakened to national awareness and a growing discontent’ this enunciative modality is becoming embedded in the archive. 1949 - The enonce of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ appear in the discourse. The enonces, ‘the segregation of aboriginals’ and ‘discrimination by whites against aboriginals’, appear in the archive. 1953 - The enonce of ‘segregation’ is embedded in the discourse. The enonces of ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘assimilation’ appear in the discourse. The enunciative modality ‘scandal’ describing Australia’s policy towards its Aboriginal people appears in the archive. 1954 - The enunciative modality of ‘peaceful landing’ and ‘history beginning with the arrival of whites to Australia’ appears. 1955 - The enonce of ‘tribe’ appears in the discourse. The use of the title ‘Mr’ for an Aboriginal male 21 or older appears in the discourse. The enonce ‘White Australia Policy’ appears in the archive. 1958 – The enunciative modality of ‘granting equality to aborigines’ appears in the discourse. 1960 – ‘The White Australia Policy’ becomes the enonce of ‘Australian Immigration Policy’. 1962 – The first example where Aboriginal Australians are mentioned as taking an official part in Australia Day Ceremonies. The enonce ‘multi-racial’ appears. 1964 – The first example of where ‘The White Australia Policy’ is suggested as having to be changed to accommodate Australia’s maturing relationship with Asia. 1967 – The enunciative modality of ‘Asia is presenting an economic opportunity for Australia’ appears. 1969 – The capitalised enonce of ‘Aboriginal’ appears with the lower case disappearing from this point. The enonce of ‘poverty in Australia’ appears. The Aboriginal boxer,

180 Lionel Rose is ‘Australian of the Year’ and the first Aboriginal to be bestowed with that title. 1970 – The enonce ‘full-blood Aboriginal’ as a form of racial categorisation makes its last appearance in the archive. 1971 – The enunciative modality of ‘legal discrimination against Aborigines’ and the enonce of ‘racist’ appears. 1972 – The enunciative modality of ‘land rights’ appears. The enonce of ‘Aboriginal citizens’ appears. 1974 – The enonce of ‘illegal migrants’ appears. 1975 – Migrants officially take part in Australia Day celebrations in Sydney and the enonce ‘ethnic’ appears. 1977 – The enonce of ‘the dole’ to assist the unemployed appears. 1978 – The enonce of ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘underprivileged’ appear. 1979 – the enonce of ‘indigenous’ appears. 1981 – the enunciative modality of ‘the beginning of the end of Aboriginal Australia’ appears. 1983 – the enonce of ‘younger … more radical Aborigines’ appears. The appearance of this enonce signals a discontinuity that permits Aboriginals to voice criticisms and concerns over their treatment by whites. From 1983 onwards Aborigines are permitted to question and confront the normative truth of white colonisation. 1984 – the enonce of ‘Aboriginal art’ appears in the archive. The enunciative modality of Aboriginal Affairs being ‘a national disgrace’ appears. Aboriginals continue to criticise their treatment by whites with the appearance of the words ‘genocide’ and ‘genocidal’ appearing. The enonce ‘sacred sites’ enters the archive. 1985 – the enonce ‘blacks’ appears to describe Aboriginal Australians. 1987 – the enonce ‘egalitarian’ and ‘Invasion’ appear. 1988 – the enonce of ‘a record of violence and racism’ by whites against Aborigines appears. The enonce ‘Aborigines protesting’ appears. 1989 – the enonce ‘Asian century’ appears. 1990 – the enonce of ‘refugee’ appears. 1991 – the enonce of ‘multiculturalism’ appears.

181 1992 – the enunciative modality of ‘the issue of citizenship’ appears. 1993 – the enunciative modality of ‘Aboriginal nations’ appears. 1994 - the enonce of ‘Australian republic’ appears in the discourse linked to the enunciative modality of ‘egalitarianism that pervades the Australian character’. 1995 – the enunciative modality of ‘Asian migration is too great’ reappears from 1988. 1996 – the enonce of ‘underclass’ to describe the working poor appears. 1997 – the enonce of ‘reconciliation’ appears in the archive. 1998 – the enunciative modality of ‘Asianise Australia’ appears. 1999 – the enonce of ‘treaty’ appears in the archive. 2001 – the enonce ‘indigenous’ appears. 2002 – the enonce of ‘asylum seekers’ and ‘Indigenous Australians’ appears. 2003 – An official Aboriginal cleansing ceremony commences the Australia Day celebrations for the first time. 2004 – the enunciative modality of ‘Australia becoming a less equal society’ appears. 2005 – the enonce of ‘first peoples’ appears. 2006 – the enunciative modality of ‘how Australian history should be taught’ and ‘history teaching and social cohesion’. Additionally the enonce ‘Sydney’s Muslims’ appears. 2007 – the enonce of a ‘a good citizen’ appears and the enunciative modality of ‘multiculturalism has failed’ and the need for a ‘testing regime placed in schools to control knowledge about Australia’s history and traditions’ appears.

5.5.1 Australian citizenship discursive experiences In many ways the discourse can be best understood as a series of transformations and emerging discontinuities from deep discursive structures that conditioned thinking and acting regarding specific concepts and themes. The discourse of citizenship from 1946- 2007 can be divided into five distinct discursive periods with specific themes. These are: ‘The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969’; ‘Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980’; ‘Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988’; ‘Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996’; ‘The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’.

182 This first period ‘The silencing of Aboriginal concerns 1946 – 1969’ the tactic of attempting to silence concerns over the treatment of Aboriginals by whites was present in the archive. This silencing was done in an attempt to control normative thinking and behaviour by whites towards Aboriginal people. The year 1946 also demonstrated the leadership of the Christian churches in promoting racial equality for Aborigines. The last mention of the Church and its role in improving the lives of Aborigines occurs in the 1959 edition. In 1946 the enonce ‘aboriginal’ stays until 1969 where the first use of the capitalised ‘A’ for Aboriginal emerges in the discourse. In 1949 the enonce of ‘segregation’ was used to explain why ‘half-castes’ needed to be removed from outer Sydney. The idea of ‘breeding out’ Aboriginality was also expressed at this time and showed the systems of thought that allowed what we now know as genocidal practices to be permitted within the discourse to be discussed by authorities as a solution to what was called the ‘aboriginal problem’. The year 1949 was also the first year that the enonce of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ were used due to the passing of the Australian Naturalisation Act (1948). In 1953 the enonce ‘half-caste’ remained in circulation within the discourse while the enonce ‘scandal’ is used by authorised voices, again in the church, to describe Australia’s treatment of Aborigines by whites. At this time the enonce ‘segregation’ is still in circulation within the discourse. In 1955 the ‘benefits’ of the White Australia Policy are discussed without any acknowledgement of its exclusionary effects to non-whites. By 1960 the White Australia Policy has become known as the Australian Immigration Policy reflecting a certain discomfort with its emphasis on white racial superiority. In 1955 a shift in the discourse occurred with the term ‘Mr’ being used for the first time as an honorific title for an Aboriginal male. This suggests an emerging understanding of the need for equality between whites and Aboriginals. In 1958 the enonce ‘Japs’ is used to denote the Japanese people but by 1962 this enonce is prohibited with Japanese becoming the accepted enonce. The year 1962 also sees the first example of Aboriginals taking part in official Australia Day celebrations and the first use of the enonce of ‘multi-racial society’. By 1964 the discourse permits discussions by academics on the amendment of the White Australia Policy for Australia to gain acceptance in Asia.

183 In the second period ‘Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980’ the discourse begins to permit authorised voices to question why poverty is accepted, why racism towards migrants is acceptable and why Aboriginals are being racially discriminated against by whites. Additionally this period sees the emergence of ‘enterprise citizenship’. In 1969 the first discussion in the discourse occurs regarding poverty. The word ‘shame’ is used to attempt to force citizens to alter their normative thoughts and actions on poverty in society and reassess the position that maintains the belief that Australia is an egalitarian society. 1971 sees the enonce ‘racist’ appear for the first time in the discourse in relation to Australia’s migrant policy. By 1972 the enonce ‘Aboriginal land rights’ has entered the discourse. In 1973 the use of the enonce ‘citizenship’ replaces the word ‘naturalisation’ in ‘citizenship ceremonies’. In 1974 the enonce ‘illegal migrant’ is used in the discourse with the main focus for this year being concerns regarding poverty and unequal opportunity throughout Australian society. The year 1975 sees the first example of ‘ethnics’ (migrants) permitted to participate in Australia Day celebrations. In 1977 concerns over rising unemployment show the emerging practice of enterprise citizenship entering the discursive framework with this concept again discussed in 1978 and 1979. The discourse shifts in 1980 over concerns regarding the transformation of Australia into a ‘multi-racial society’ with this enonce making its second appearance the first being in 1962. From 1981 – 1988 with the ‘Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988’ the discourse thematically shifts to problematise the relations of power between Aboriginals and whites. The discourse in 1981 permits normative thought to consider that ‘white settlement’ was the beginning of the end for Aboriginal society and culture. This period is important because it has evidence of a discontinuity. For the first time Aboriginals are permitted within the discourse to criticise whites. The enonce ‘radical Aborigines’ makes its first appearance in the discourse in 1983. The year 1983 also sees Aborigines for the first time in the discourse allowed to be used as authorities on race relations. This permission allows Aboriginals to express opinions that question and denounce the previously understood moral authority of whites in their treatment of Aborigines. It also permits demonstrations for land rights and questions why no

184 Aboriginals were invited to the Sydney City’s Australia Day celebrations. In 1984 the enonce ‘sacred sites’ enters the discourse, the worthiness of Aboriginal art is discussed using international experts and policies towards Aboriginals are called ‘a national disgrace’ by an Aboriginal leader Charles Perkins. This again embeds the idea that Aboriginals are now permitted to criticise whites and allows a comparison between the British invasion and the Nazis genocidal practice against the Jews. By 1985 the enonce ‘blacks’ is used for the first time to describe Aborigines. The first use of the enonce ‘invasion’ and ‘invaded’ are also used in 1985 to describe Aboriginal dispossession by whites. By 1988 with a global focus on Australia due to the Bicentenary of White Settlement enonces such as ‘black leaders’, ‘conquest’, ‘record of violence and racism by whites’ and ‘appalling history’ are permitted to be expressed by Aboriginals as well as whites to describe race relations between whites and Aboriginals. The fourth period ‘Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996’ shows a discursive shift from Aboriginal race relations with whites to relations with Asian migrants. This period also includes a focus on the nature of egalitarianism and the responsibilities of citizenship. In 1989 the enonce of ‘Asian century’ and ‘our Asian era’ appear for the first time in the discourse. In 1990 the enonce of ‘refugee’ makes its first appearance replacing the enonce from 1974 of ‘illegal migrant’. In 1992 citizenship is problematised for the first time as an issue with authorised voices transmitting the idea of the ‘requirements and responsibilities of citizenship’. This idea becomes quickly embedded in the discourse and remains present from this time throughout the discourse. In 1993 the enonce of ‘a hidden history’ is used to help explain why many Australians do not have any knowledge of Aboriginal history and culture. In this way the tactic of silence has been exposed in the discourse. Additionally in 1993 the enonce ‘Aboriginal nations’ enters the discourse for the first time. In 1994 calls for a republic are linked with traditional knowledge of Australia being an egalitarian society while fears of rising unemployment tend to erode this belief. By 1995 John Howard’s claim from 1988 that Asian migration to Australia was too great begins to circulate in the discourse again after his election as Federal Opposition leader. The last year of this period, 1996, sees ongoing concerns over the withering of egalitarianism with the enonce ‘underclass’ emerging in the discourse. This year also sees the enonce ‘dewogging ceremonies’ enter the discourse.

185 The fifth and last period in the study ‘The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’ refocusses the discourse on the theme of Aboriginal race relations and practices of enterprise citizenship while at the same time allowing resistant voices. This period in particular shows the polysemous nature of discourse. Enonces in 1997 such as ‘appalling state of Aboriginal health’ are contrasted with ‘no need to apologise to Aborigines’. In particular this period sees the struggle of cultural dominations. The enonce ‘reconciliation’ makes its first appearance in the discourse and becomes embedded from 1997. In 1998 the enonce ‘un-Australian’ makes its second appearance but becomes embedded from this time with the concept of reconciliation again used in the discourse while fears of Australia being ‘Asianised’ re-emerge. In 1999 the enonce ‘reconciliation’ is used with the enonce ‘treaty’ which enters the discourse for the first time. The idea of egalitarianism being a feature of the Australian character makes its last appearance at this time. By 2001 the idea that many Australians believed that Aborigines are inferior to whites was permitted to be used in the discourse while the belief that whites were in a state of denial about relations with Aboriginals was also permitted. In 2002 the enonce ‘Indigenous’ becomes capitalised while ‘dispossession’ is also present in the discourse. The enonce ‘asylum seeker’ is used in place of ‘refugee’ while the enonce ‘fair go’ is used to express concerns over the erosion of egalitarianism. In 2004 a change in the discourse occurs where there is a shift away from the rights of the individual to the responsibilities of the individual to the state particularly in the continuing understanding of the erosion of egalitarianism. In 2006 acknowledgements of inequality are discussed. Of particular importance is the first appearance of the enonce ‘Muslim’ in relation to the ‘Cronulla riots’ and to the importance of the teaching of history and its role in assisting social cohesion. In the last year of the study, 2007, Aborigines are permitted to be seen as the ‘first Australians’ while the idea that ‘multi- culturalism has failed’ re-enters the discourse having emerged in the 1980s. Finally a citizens’ worthiness is established through their ability to speak and understand English with the enonce ‘a good citizen’ making its first appearance.

186 5.6 A discussion of the products of the research i) A discussion of the products of the research This dissertation used a type of historical research method modelled on the genealogical studies of Michel Foucault to determine whether citizenship could be viewed as a discourse. Having established that a discourse of citizenship did exist through the application of the methodology on the analysed data I traced a genealogy of Australian citizenship. This genealogy showed that power/knowledge was manifested discursively within citizenship discourse from 1946 – 2007. Specifically it found evidence of the workings of power/knowledge in the discourse. This demonstrated that relations of power had permeated into all levels of society allowing the concerns of Aboriginals, non-white migrants and the poor to be heard along with the dominant white voice. In 1983 the minority voices of Aboriginals became authorised to criticise whites and this discontinuity became embedded in the discourse from this point onwards. In this analysis it found evidence that power/knowledge did not simply flow from top to bottom or government to individual but through and between all levels of society. These relations of power saw the discourse as a dynamic flow of truth with its own permissions and prohibitions at specific times that regulated what could and could not be said, thought or acted at particular times through a form of cultural construction. The descent of discourse was traced through the analysis of the discourse of citizenship through specific cultural, social, economic and political statements in what Foucault (2002a) calls enonces. This tracing showed that contingent factors where at play not only in the discourse but also external factors, what Foucault (1989) called ‘exteriorities’ that shaped thought, action and speech at specific times. Foucault’s theories did not explain all of the changes or transformations analysed in the data. It was necessary to re-examine the data on occasions and to develop other explanations for the change to the systems of thought. For instance the data indicated evidence that single words could also be manifestations of power/knowledge rather than as Foucault states groups of words or statements. Furthermore, specific citizenship studies by Marshall (1949; 1961), Habermas (1989), Appadurai (1996) and Ong (2001) were utilised to shed more light on citizenship research. In particular Appadurai (1996) and Ong (2001) demonstrate that globalisation has played a substantial part in conditioning the discourse

187 of citizenship. In this way citizenship continues to change, modify and exert influence on other discourses in a dynamic flow of truth and knowledge while itself being conditioned by exteriorities. It is not clear from the archive whether an episteme of this era, that is post-World War Two exists, however undoubtedly globalisation allows neo-liberalism to permeate cultural, economic and political discourse. Thus it could be argued that neo- liberalism is the episteme of this current era although more research would need to be done to provide further evidence for such a claim. This dynamic flow of truth and its manifestation of power/knowledge was clearly demonstrated on 23 January 2007, only three days before Australia Day. As reported in the print media the following day the Prime Minister of Australia John Howard announced that the Department of Immigration was henceforth the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and that the use of the term ‘multicultural affairs’ would be discarded by the government. In this prohibition within citizenship discourse the government actively discouraged the use of the word multiculturalism due to its preferred policy of assimilation. With this change in emphasis the new minister Kevin Andrews oversaw the Government’s introduction of a twenty question multiple choice citizenship test in 2007. This citizenship test has fuelled debate about what it means to be a citizen and whether the test will alienate present or future immigrants. Mr Howard was reported as saying in relation to the citizenship test, ‘(T)he whole purpose of immigration is to recruit more people to the broader Australian family … The desired progression is that immigrants become citizens’ (Murray, 2007: 6). Further, ‘I think the title of the new department expresses the desire and aspiration, and that is that people who come to this country, who immigrate … become Australians … That’s what the Australian people want. This is not designed to kick multiculturalism it’s designed to better reflect the pathway to becoming an Australian inherent in a vibrant immigration program’ (Farr, 2007: 4). The government’s public position acknowledges the role of the people and shows that power is dispersed throughout society. Through this dispersal of power social practices at the government, social and individual level are enabled and also constrained through the use of language. Through incremental changes to language use the government is attempting to reflect social imperatives. This assists in the promotion of

188 the idea of a form of ‘unity’ through an unstated ‘monoculturalism’ rather than ‘diversity’ through ‘multiculturalism’. This was done by associating the enonce ‘immigration’ with the enonce of ‘citizenship’ in this manifestation of power/knowledge which has consequent rights and responsibilities. Immigration in this sense was not simply about residing in Australia it became a commitment to the values and beliefs of a dominant group in Australian society through a process of assimilation. This specific focus altered the nature of the discourse of citizenship as it authorised thought and action in relation to immigration and citizenship thereby creating a limit to discursive formations. The discourse of ‘Australian citizenship’ as a form of power/knowledge embeds discursive structures to limit normative thought and action. This discursive action creates forces of resistance to counter normative thought and action. For instance the enunciative modality, ‘(T)hat’s what the Australian people want’ permits changes to citizenship to be normatively authorised by the people, not simply by the legal and political moves. This example shows that for a truth to be proclaimed power must be dispersed or at least be seen to be dispersed throughout society. In this way such a position aligns with Foucault (1980) when he states that, ‘…individuals are the vehicles of power not its point of application’ (p. 98). ii) Relationship of the current study to previous research The research described in this dissertation was based on the discursive analysis of newspaper texts from 1946 – 2007 to trace the descent of Australian citizenship discourse. In Australia, citizenship has been normatively understood as a legal and political phenomenon with a set of rights and responsibilities from its implementation in 1949 (Galligan and Roberts 2004). These rights and responsibilities have generated a number of research problems including those associated with ‘rights and responsibilities’, ‘defining citizenship and its purposes’ (Walter and MacLeod 2002), ‘the roles of citizens’ (Hirst 2002), ‘the history of Australian citizenship’ (Davidson 2000), ‘egalitarianism’ (Thompson 2001; Argy 2003; Peel 2003; Pusey 2003 and Saunders 2005), ‘normative and legal understandings of citizenship’ (Irving 2006), ‘poststructuralism and citizenship’ (Petersen et al 1998), ‘Indigenous Australians’ (Petersen and Sanders 1998), ‘citizenship as a site for discrimination’ (Coleman and Higgins 2000), ‘cultural minority groups’

189 (Dutton 2002; Manning 2004; 2006 and 2007), ‘genocide’ (Davidson 2000), ‘education’ (Petersen et al 1998) , ‘genetics’ (Petersen et al 1998), ‘education’s role in constructing types of citizens’ (Marginson 1997a), ‘sexuality’ (Sullivan 2000), and ‘the role of feminism’ (Cox 2000). From the creation of the Australian federation in 1901 until 1948 all Australians were British subjects. The dissertation investigated how ‘citizenship’ and ‘the citizen’ were understood at specific points in time from 1946 - 2007. This was done to trace relations of power and to determine to what extent citizenship could be imagined as a cultural construction. This is an important consideration because cultural constructions tend to reinforce and perpetuate unequal relations of power. By viewing citizenship in this way it allows for the re-imaging of citizenship to provide greater individual expression and freedom. The research described in this thesis has connections to ontological (theories of the self), epistemological (theories of knowledge) and methodological studies that focus on the analysis of discourse. The evidence for this investigation was found in newspaper texts from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald. This technique of using media texts including newspapers has previously been used by the Dutch researcher van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1991; 1997 and 1998) and more recently in Australia by Manning (2004; 2006 and 2007) both of whom mapped the print media’s role in the transmission and production of racism. These researchers used newspaper texts as data for their research because they contain evidence of discursive formations. Indeed Foucault (1991a) used newspapers, or ‘gazettes’ from the 1600s as evidence for understanding the role of discourse in the formation of the subject. Additionally the dissertation links with the citizenship studies described and reviewed in the Literature Review in Chapters Two and Three. By investigating citizenship as a problematic I utilised the research methods and findings of Foucault (1980; 1991a; 1998; 2002a) including genealogy, archaeology and power/knowledge to explain how and why systems of thought regarding citizenship changed, transformed or became discontinuous over time. To do this citizenship was imagined as a discourse that changed due to the internal mechanisms of discourse and the exteriorities of discourse. Foucault’s (1980; 1991a; 1998; 2002a) findings when applied to the data on Australian citizenship produced a genealogy. The tracing of the descent of

190 discourse historicised it to produce a genealogy of Australian citizenship. However, not all the developments could be adequately explained by Foucault’s theories. As an exteriority of citizenship the theories of the effects of globalisation on individual citizens including those by Appadurai (1996; 2000), Giddens (1991; 1999), Held (2002) and Ong (1999) assisted in constructing additional knowledge about the role of globalisation in the shaping of the discourse of citizenship. Additionally the discourse of neo-liberalism also assisted in explaining some practices from the late 1970s to the present. Foucault labelled himself a historian of the systems of thought (Mills 2003). He used historical investigations to explain current thinking and practices related to prisons, psychiatry, knowledge construction and sexuality. He used these investigations and the analysis of discursive formations to explain that knowledge has boundaries, that truth is not immutable and that the present is not the result of historical inevitabilities. By explaining the present in genealogical terms or as he called these investigations ‘a history of the present’ he calls into question the nature of subjectivity and asks us to question the rationality of our current practices. In other words, what role does individual thought and action play in the development of the individual and what role does discourse play in the construction of the subject? Further, through developing this knowledge how can subjects have greater freedom? These larger philosophical questions are not always the central concerns of his studies but they do play a part in all of his research whether stated or not. Thus for Foucault, historical studies were a way to better understand society to assist in a re-ordering of society through the promotion of greater individual freedoms but most importantly to better know the self. This dissertation uses this philosophical and historical position to view citizenship as a discourse. By doing so it questions current understandings in order to promote greater freedoms through an increase in knowledge of the workings of power and to better know the role of the subject in discourse. Finally this dissertation links to other research on the analysis of discourse as according to Smart (2002) discursive studies are an aid to self-understanding. iii) Recommendations for educators The analysis of the data has shown that Foucault’s findings can be applied to assist in improving knowledge of the workings of power and its role in how systems of thought

191 develop and change. Specifically when citizenship is analysed as a discourse it allows for a better understanding of contemporary society. Citizenship studies have grown in importance in globalised nations particularly since the rise of migration to western countries including Australia. This rise in migration as an effect of globalisation has brought with it challenges to accepted social orthodoxy. To counter such challenges to normative thought education has been seen as a vehicle for greater social, political and economic assimilation. For instance this rise in interest in citizenship studies can be seen with the European Union naming 2005, the ‘Year of Citizenship Education’. In New South Wales schools citizenship has been taught since 2000 as a mandatory component of the Australian History course (1901 – 2000) for all Years 9 and 10 secondary high school students. Within secondary education citizenship is seen as a set of rights and responsibilities enshrined in law. In this understanding it is normatively believed that through a greater knowledge of citizenship individuals can become better citizens and help build a more cohesive nation (Horne 1994). However, the notion that citizenship is a discourse with its own set of rules and regulations is not considered as part of the curriculum for students or teachers. This view needs to be re-assessed particularly in the light of this research and also recent Australian educational theory such as the Productive Pedagogies76 research (2000). The Productive Pedagogies research and findings into student learning and teaching practice identified dimensions and elements of effective teaching and learning. The element ‘problematic knowledge’ within the dimension of ‘Intellectual Quality’ has some links with discursive studies. Problematic knowledge is the element where the construction of knowledge is understood as a social construction with rules and regulations limiting the scope of a particular body of knowledge. This theory of knowledge is implicitly linked to Foucaultian understandings of power/knowledge. It seems pertinent then that current educators and teacher training colleges provide mandatory courses on the historical methods of Foucault to assist teachers and subsequently their students to better understand theories on the construction of knowledge. This could be done to allow teachers to explore the ideas of Foucault and their applications to their teaching and to student learning. A recommendation of this research is that current and future educators need training and professional development

76 See D. Hayes et al (2006) ‘Teachers and Schooling Making a Difference’ pp. 32 – 81.

192 in Foucaultian theory to fully understand the element of problematic knowledge in order to improve teaching, learning, assessment and reporting practices. Following from this a secondary recommendation of this research is that citizenship can also be understood as a discourse so that students view current practices not as historical inevitabilities but as a result of the interplay of contingent factors. Such a position will allow students to thoroughly question contemporary society through the application of critical thinking to improve individual freedom of thought, speech and action. iv) Suggestions for additional research The only other date of national significance is April 25 which is known as ANZAC Day. This day commemorates the landing of Australian and New Zealand army corps under the command of the British forces at the Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey in 1915 during World War One. It is commemorated by Australians as a day in honour of the sacrifice and courage demonstrated by the soldiers who volunteered to fight. It is a day where Australia commenced its role in the world still tied to the apron strings of ‘mother’ England. Despite the military failure with the ANZACs withdrawing in December 1915, its social importance has grown. Using the same or similar methodology in this dissertation it would be worthwhile to undertake a study of newspaper texts related to the specific date of April 25 also known as Anzac Day. As explained in Chapter Four this day represents traditional understandings related to the commencement of Australia’s first large-scale military campaign in World War One. When this date is used as a platform for gathering data changes to the construction of truth could also be mapped from 1916 the first anniversary of Anzac Day to the present. This could assist researchers in providing additional evidence on systems of thought related to specific values such as ‘sacrifice’ and ‘mateship’, how these changed over time and the contingent factors that led to these changes and the role discourse plays in the transmission and production of thought. However the date does not lead itself to data that encompasses the broad sweep of Australian society for the purposes of this dissertation. However based on the Foucaultian methodology used in this dissertation it is clearly ripe for investigation and analysis at some future time.

193 5.7 Chapter conclusion This chapter presented the products of the analysis of the discourse of Australian citizenship. The study was based on evidence found in the newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald on January 26 for every year from 1946 – 2007. Additionally the date of January 27 was also used to add weight to the evidence through the documentation of speeches, comments, photographs and reports from Australia Day proceedings. The analysis was conducted to establish whether Australian citizenship could be viewed, in a Foucaultian sense as a discourse. The analysis produced evidence that a discourse exists and that its manifestations of power/knowledge were found in statements and also in the specific language associated with citizenship. Importantly discursive studies emphasise that history can be viewed in terms of discontinuities. Traditional historical studies emphasise continuity and ‘historical development’. This study has found evidence of discontinuities, in particular from the 1980s where Aboriginal people for the first time were allowed to criticise their treatment by whites and through a shift in systems of thought that permitted the use of the enonce ‘invaded’ rather than ‘colonised’. This shift in thought created a rupture to previous thinking that had all but silenced Aboriginal concerns about their treatment by whites. The production of the analysis has produced a genealogy of Australian citizenship. Foucault (1998) considers genealogies to be significant as they are a form of effective history which encourage the questioning of the rationality of current practices, in this case, related to citizenship. A discussion of this facet of the research is given in the following chapter titled ‘Re-thinking Australian citizenship discourse’.

194 Chapter Six: Re-thinking Australian citizenship discourse

‘I don’t believe there can be a society without relations of power, if you understand them as means by which individuals try to conduct, to determine the behaviour of others. The problem is not of trying to dissolve them in the utopia of a perfectly transparent communication, but to give one’s self the rules of law, the techniques of management, and also the ethics, the ethos, the practice of self, which would allow these games of power to be played with the minimum of domination’ (The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom, Foucault 1988b:18)

6.1 Introduction The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct a historical investigation into the systems of thought of Australian citizenship experiences and practices from 1946 – 2007. The applied method used Foucault’s genealogy and archaeology to interrogate these citizenship experiences and practices as recorded in newspaper texts published on ‘Australia Day’, 26 January. This was done to determine whether citizenship could be imagined as a discourse and if so what evidence could be traced as manifestations of power/knowledge in the archive. The original intention of the research was to investigate understandings of inequality. Through the application of the methodology the focus of the study shifted to highlight Australia’s unequal treatment of Indigenous communities and individuals, fear of non-white migrants and the erosion of traditional understandings of egalitarianism. There is further elaboration of this aspect of the study in ‘6.3 Re-imagining citizenship discourse’. In this dissertation a genealogy of Australian citizenship discourse was presented with its manifestations of power/knowledge. These manifestations produced five distinct themes as discursive time periods in the genealogy. I labelled them in Chapter Five as, ‘The silencing of Aboriginal Affairs 1946 – 1969, Authorised voices question the acceptance of poverty and racism 1969 – 1980, Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988, Relations of power between Asian immigrants and whites 1989 – 1996, The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’.

195 Foucault (2002a) states that discourses are significant because as practices they, ‘…systematically form the objects of which they speak’ (p. 54). The above themes with their manifestations of power/knowledge provide some evidence that the discourse of citizenship plays an important role in ‘systematically forming the objects of which they speak’ (Foucault 2002a). There is some evidence in the archive of the production, transmission and reproduction of racism and prejudice. In this way this outcome of the research also amplifies the findings of van Dijk (1985; 1988; 1997a; 1997b and 2004) and Manning (2004; 2006 and 2007). Despite this form of production, the discourse was also able to produce citizens who were able to break free of these discursive structures and question the rationality of these normative practices and experiences. This is an important outcome of the research because it adds further meaning to Foucault’s (1980; 1998) findings that discourse not only constrains thought and action through the acceptance of knowledge and truth it also enables thought and action through resistance producing new knowledge and truths. By imagining citizenship as a discourse with its sets of rules and regulations which both constrained and enabled specific knowledge to be produced, reproduced and transmitted I was able to view citizenship as a culturally constructed group of discursive formations and practices that set limits to systems of thought. When citizenship is viewed as a cultural construction rather than simply a legal-political reality as it is mainly understood in the literature the rationality of current citizenship practices and experiences can be examined from alternative positions. This is an important outcome of the research because it adds further meaning to Foucault’s (1980; 1991a; 1998 and 2002a) research on the role of discourse in shaping and developing subjectivity. The dissertation provided further evidence to Foucault’s (1980 and 1998) claims that relations of power are dispersed throughout society and citizens although shaped by discourse also have the power to shape the discourse itself. In this relationship citizens are not simply produced through forces of domination but are produced through and exist in networks of power. This finding provides further evidence to Foucault’s (1980) findings on the productive nature of discourse and the role of the individual in shaping discourse. The dissertation also provides evidence that supports Foucault’s (1998) position that discourses are productive as they have the capacity to produce effective

196 citizens through relations of power that emphasise normative thought, speech and action. Additionally through the application of the Foucaultian methodology the thesis traced evidence of the emergence and development of a type of citizenship experience that emphasised a form of enlightened self-interest. This form of citizenship was identified as ‘enterprise citizenship’ and linked with the rise of neo-liberal discursive formations and practices. In the genealogical understanding of citizenship I have supplied evidence to suggest that current citizenship practices are not simply the result of historical inevitabilities but have emerged as a result of the interplay of contingent factors including the growth of globalisation and neo-liberalism. This genealogy of Australian citizenship is what Foucault (1998) calls ‘a history of the present’ and also a form of ‘effective history’ (1991d). By establishing a history of the present I have created a platform to question the rationality of current thoughts and practices of citizenship. This questioning of the rationality of current practices was Foucault’s goal in his historical investigations, not simply to better understand the past but ultimately to question the rationality of present practices. As a philosophical practice, the analysis of discourse using the Foucaultian method allowed me to develop a greater understanding of self-knowledge, what Foucault (1991e) calls ‘a practice of the self’ and ‘ethos’. The practice of ethos allows individuals to better understand themselves and their place in the world while also advancing a greater freedom for citizens through a de-masking of specific relations of power. In this way the analysis of discourse is an aid to understanding.

6.2 Solving the methodological dilemma: the limits of the Foucaultian method. According to Bentley (2000) if Foucault can be considered a historian he is ‘a bad historian’. Windschuttle (1996) also holds a similar position to Bentley’s (2000) views on Foucault. A legitimate question regarding the application of the methodology in this dissertation would have to be, whether the same products of the research would have been arrived at using a more ‘traditional’ form of historical analysis rather than a Foucaultian approach. The answer would probably be to some extent, ‘yes, they would be similar’. However, the development of the methodology also shapes the types of

197 questions and reflects the problems of contemporary society. In other words it was only through an interest in Foucault that the particular questions and problems about Australian citizenship arose in my thinking. With the study completed a more traditional historical approach to pursue ‘objective knowledge’ such as the type developed by von Ranke (1795 – 1886) and most famously utilised by Elton (1921 – 1994) could have been applied. Recently in Australia Windschuttle (1996; 2002; 2005) claimed he also used such an approach. When applied to the data the above approach might possibly achieve the same results and appease critics. The problem with such a ‘hindsight’ position is that ‘orthodox’ or ‘traditional history’ generally is not concerned with ‘systems of thought’ (Curthoys and Docker 2007). Alternatively although the application of a methodology based on Marxist thought would have allowed for a focus on ‘marginal groups’ and issues of ‘racism’ and ‘equality’ it would not have afforded the same products of the research that the Foucaultian method has allowed me to derive. This is because Marxism is centred on historical inevitability. I chose to view history through the spectrum of contingencies. Thus after the fact, traditional or even Marxist methods could potentially generate similar outcomes. Importantly the questions would not have arisen if I had stayed within other more common historical traditions. My interests would have laid elsewhere and thus the products of the research would not be the same as those that appear in the thesis. Bentley (2000) further states that since the 1970s, ‘(H)istorians have watched or actively aided the unravelling of their discipline in order to cope better with new currents of thought and to bring their more recent subject matter into a better fit with modern thought’ (p. 143). I am in a small way part of the process of unravelling tradition; a tradition that brought to us a silence about Indigenous history, a silence about poverty and a denial of racial and social discrimination. I would argue that through abandoning traditional historical methods and the history that was taught to me in the 1970s at primary and secondary school, ‘that Captain Cook discovered Australia in 1770’, was a reasonable and ethical thing to do. Through abandoning traditional historical methods I have taken up the challenge of the historian Keith Jenkins (1991) in his text ‘Re-thinking History’ where he states that it is only through a ‘change of gaze’ a ‘shift in perspective’

198 that ‘new readings’ of history appear (p. 17). This tactic has allowed me to develop an alternative reading, a genealogy, of Australian citizenship.

6.3 Re-imagining citizenship discourse This dissertation as a form of ‘effective history’ has provided me with the opportunity to develop insights into citizenship discourse. This thesis has provided evidence to support practical and theoretical arguments regarding the rationality of current citizenship experiences and practices. However this was not the original focus for the research. The original intention was to investigate inequality in society and to trace changes to understandings or knowledge of inequality through the analysis of newspaper texts as historical documents. At the commencement of the dissertation in January 2002 as I began to develop my research interests and methods, concepts and theories of inequality were of great interest to me due to an underlying belief in social justice. This belief was also informed by my training and experience as an educator and historian. These general research interests over time led me to interrogate newspapers as historical documents. This analysis in turn has provided evidence of systems of thought related to citizenship from the post-World War Two period to the present. The first year or so of the research was involved in reflecting and researching inequality through a reading and analysis of foundational texts regarding theories on the nature of western society and the production and distribution of knowledge. These texts included; Das Capital: Volume 1 by Marx (1990), Orientalism by Said (2003), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by Schumpeter (1976), The Wealth of Nations by Smith (1991), The Archaeology of Knowledge (2002a), Discipline and Punish (1991), The History of Sexuality: Volume 1 (1998) and Power/Knowledge (1980) by Foucault. Having reflected on the implications of the texts in relation to citizenship it became clear that a general investigation into inequality in Australia was unlikely to yield meaningful and useful data so as to be able to construct a genealogy. This necessitated a narrowing of the research problem to the overarching research question related to Australian citizenship discourse. A further narrowing became increasingly clear when I commenced analysing the data from 1946 - 2007. The abysmal treatment of Indigenous Australians by

199 white Australians as recorded in that first edition in 1946 and subsequent editions including the last in 2007 became a focus of the study because of the weight of evidence in the archive when analysed in the data. From simply being an investigation into inequality it was transformed through the application of the Foucaultian method to a genealogical approach that traces the racial and social divide in contemporary Australia particularly between whites and Indigenous but also between ethnic minority groups and whites. An additional finding from the data was the transformation of understandings of egalitarianism and how this change conditioned citizens to accept greater responsibility for their own welfare through a neo-liberal ideology of ‘user pays’ that sees poverty and inequality as ‘choice’ not ‘chance’. These were the main concerns that leapt from the data. These concerns represent the ‘limits of discourse’. According to Foucault (2002a) it is at the limits of discourse that ruptures to systems of thought occur. The application of the Foucaultian method allowed for a tracing of these transformations, ruptures and discontinuities so that a genealogy could be established. For this reason despite the emphasis on the concerns expressed above, the study reaffirms the view (Marshall 1949; Habermas 1989; Galligan and Roberts 2004) that citizenship is an important social structure that potentially provides all citizens with a legal, political and social framework to conduct relationships based on a commonality of rights and responsibilities with some certainty between themselves, with organisations, institutions and governments. The miracle of multiculturalism, the transformation of Australia in the space of a generation from a society that promoted white supremacy and silence on Aboriginal history to a multi-racial society that is now attempting to fully include Indigenous society is further evidence of the transformative nature of discourse77. However, this dissertation also provides evidence that the potential of citizenship discourse, what Foucault (1988b) calls, ‘… the games of power … played with a minimum of domination’ (p. 18), has not been achieved particularly in relation to Indigenous peoples and non-white minorities. In the quote above, Foucault suggests that human

77 On 13 February 2008 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations in the Australian Parliament by saying ‘sorry’. This was one of the recommendations of the ‘Bringing Them Home’ report from 1997 that documented the removal of Aboriginal children from their homes by State Government authorities. This is discussed further on page 227 below.

200 nature is constantly shaped by relations of power but that it does not have to be shaped in the same way as it has been in the past. This is a past that has denied, deferred and denigrated the rights of Indigenous and ethnic minorities. As a genealogy this dissertation supports the position that ‘a minimum of domination’ will not be achieved if white Australia does not fully come to terms with the effects of conquest on Indigenous populations. In Chapter Five the data from 1983 onwards shows from the Indigenous experience the British colonisation of Australia was an invasion which resulted in the destruction of approximately 250 Aboriginal nations with distinct language groups through death, disease, segregation and dispossession. From this time in the archive Aboriginals are authorised to criticise their treatment by whites. It is from this thematic discursive period Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988 that this enonce ‘invasion’ becomes embedded in the discourse and a struggle for dominations becomes increasingly evident. A common theme that was evident in the archive was the unequal distribution of relations of power between whites and Aboriginals. This was also echoed in the unequal relations of power between whites and non-white migrants. Another theme that began to emerge from the data from 1977 was the development of a type of citizenship experience associated with the erosion of understandings of egalitarianism through the promotion of neo-liberal ideologies which I labelled ‘enterprise citizenship’. This form of experience emphasises a citizen’s individual responsibility to the state rather than their rights as citizens. This responsibility relates to compliance to the requirements of the state, particularly a citizen’s economic responsibility to produce wealth, consume goods and provide for themselves and their families rather than to expect the state to provide employment opportunities and specific services. Australia’s relationship with Asia and its treatment of Asian-Australians was evident in the archive from 1947. It became a feature of the archive from 1989. In the final two years of the study, 2006 and 2007, the unequal relations of power between whites and Muslims also emerged as a key theme particularly after the Cronulla riots of December 2005. The use of fear as a cohesive force in the discourse at this time was

201 reminiscent of the discourse during the period that saw the White Australia Policy as a central plank of the construction of a ‘cohesive’ Australian society. The analysis of citizenship discourse in this thesis shows that systems of thought that transmitted the belief that whites were superior to other ‘races’ maintained a beliefs that accepted inequality between whites and Aboriginals and whites and others as historically inevitable. The system of thought that places race relations as a form of a Darwinian struggle of the survival of the fittest as a justification for the inevitability of conquest and empire has resulted in a society that unfairly blames Aboriginal people for their current unequal state with whites78. This rationality at times has been successfully questioned within the discourse particularly after 1967, from 1983-1988, at times in the early 1990s and from 1997 up to the end of the study. According to the data due to deep discursive structures whites generally have not made the connection between the poverty of the Aboriginal people including lower incomes, poor health and education, and social dysfunction with racist practices from the past79. This social dysfunction is also evidenced with the Stolen Generations where up to 10,000 Aboriginal children from the 1930s to the early 1970s were legally removed from their homes by white authorities who generally believed they were doing what was necessary for Australia through the implementation of the policies of segregation and assimilation (Read 2007; Bird 1998). Additionally, the removal and segregation of Aboriginal people from traditional lands without compensation or acknowledgement that the land was traditionally owned by Aboriginal people continues to be a fundamental issue. The data from Chapter Five particularly in ‘The silencing of Aboriginal Affairs 1946 – 1969’, ‘Relations of power between Aboriginals and whites 1981 – 1988’ and ‘The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’ showed on many occasions the use of silence by whites regarding the prior ownership of the land by Aboriginal people to justify their own prosperity and good fortune. The struggle by Indigenous people to own land became a possibility after the constitutional amendments after 1967. It was recognised by the High Court with the

78 See the Aboriginal leader Mick Dodson’s (2004) comments regarding this on pages 172 – 173 of this thesis, from the SMH article, No threat in giving indigenous ways a place in the life of Australia. 79 This is evident in 1946, 1949, 1959 and specifically from 1983 – 1989. This emerges again in the data from 1997 – 2007.

202 Mabo decision of 1992 and the Wik decision of 1996. These legal decisions allowed Indigenous ownership where Indigenous Peoples could prove an ongoing traditional relationship with the land from the time of British settlement. In the Mabo decision the High Court also struck down the notion that Australia before white settlement was ‘Terra Nullius’ or land belonging to no-one. These were significant legal findings yet their full ramifications have not as yet filtered through, as ‘savoir’, to all elements of society as shown in the discourse in ‘The struggle of cultural dominations 1997 – 2007’. No treaty has ever been signed by an Australian government, Commonwealth or State, representing the white colonial power. This is despite the idea of a treaty entering the discourse as early as the mid-1980s, although it did not appear in the analysed data in this dissertation until 2001. As Dodson (2004) states, (T)here must be fundamental constitutional change in this country, and there must be a treaty’ (p. 15). According to Davis (2006), ‘Australia is the only Commonwealth nation to fail to negotiate a treaty between its indigenous peoples and the state’ (p.177). She asserts that this lack of recognition through the provision of a treaty, ‘… has meant that their (Indigenous) rights are subject to the whims of the ideological fashions and the governing political party of the day’ (pp. 177 – 178). The purpose of a treaty would be an acknowledgement by society that past practices led to the death of Aboriginal nations and ongoing dispossession has led to the continuing marginalisation of Indigenous communities. This marginalisation and ongoing unequal relations of power are historical reminders of past and current racially discriminatory policies. A treaty could set-out just compensation for Indigenous Peoples and establish the provision for funding of health and education services specifically designed to narrow the health and education gap between whites and the Indigenous. By doing so a treaty would not simply be a symbolic act of apology for past practices but would recognise that the current governments and institutional policies provided for the welfare of Aboriginals have failed to achieve real and lasting reconciliation. The treaty should recognise prior ownership of the land by Indigenous groups. By doing this the treaty would recognise that Indigenous groups were dispossessed in a process of historical conquest by British colonisers that continued into the 20th century. The treaty could contain the fact that as the land was stolen and appropriated by whites without compensation it is necessary for

203 the whole of the Australian community to use its current prosperity to provide health, employment and education services to Aboriginal communities and individuals to ensure that greater social and economic equality occurs for current and future generations of Indigenous Peoples. A treaty would also symbolise that the hidden history of the invasion of Australia needs to be fully told to current and future generations so that our citizenship can be re-imagined so that games of power are played with the minimum of domination. A treaty could have practical implications. Based on the analysis of the discourse the ‘regular convulsion’ around Australia Day discussed in Chapter One will continue while ever non-Indigenous Australians fail to recognise that Australia has become a prosperous nation on the back of the taking of Indigenous lands. The dispossession of Indigenous Peoples and the acquisition of their land have produced enormous wealth, power and privilege for the vast majority of non-Indigenous Australians over many generations. Failure to recognise this reality by white Australia and other non-Indigenous groups will only further marginalise Indigenous Australians and make hollow the rhetoric of Australia Day as ‘the celebration of Australia for all Australians’. As part of the treaty negotiations a Truth Commission could be established to allow those who have harmed Indigenous Peoples or know of harm to Indigenous Peoples to speak their truth without fear of prosecution. This would let all of the Australian people better understand what happened to Indigenous communities and individuals in the past. Truth Commissions have helped several countries to establish what has happened in their past and facilitated the healing of relationships. In particular the South African Truth Commission (1996 – 1998) focused on the restoration of equality and rebuilding relationships. The Truth Commission laid the groundwork for future social, economic and political development in South Africa through its reconciliatory approach. Such a model applied to Australia would also have the potential to contribute to ‘the games of power … played with a minimum of domination’. An Australian Truth Commission would give the Indigenous people another voice and enhance the process of reconciliation. Additionally an Indigenous representative ‘Council of Elders’ could be formed to oversee Indigenous populations to ensure that Indigenous health, education and employment match non-Indigenous populations and that Aboriginal land rights benefit all

204 members of the community through equal and just practices80. Such a representative leadership group could be funded through royalty payments from mining and resource companies who profit from Indigenous land holdings. The Council of Elders could assist in ending the greatest and most immediate concerns in Australian citizenship which are the widening health, education and wealth gaps between whites and Indigenous Peoples. Having been removed from the democratic and capitalist process by whites until only relatively recently, Indigenous communities and individuals continue to suffer while whites prosper from past racist practices. Indigeneity is strongly connected to community relations and community ownership rather than the promotion of individuality which is part of western culture, now placed into overdrive by the adoption of neo-liberalism. It is imperative that greater dialogue is achieved between whites and the Indigenous to ensure that Indigenous communities are not left behind in the growing prosperity of the Australian nation. This dialogue could inform education and employment practices by the Indigenous for Indigenous communities. This would enable Indigenous citizens to promote their heritage, language, culture and history and ensure a minimum of domination in the relations of power between the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous. A Council of Elders is one way such a dialogue could be achieved. Although there has been some recent change in the discourse on relations of power between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous, racial prejudice and inequality were also produced, reproduced and transmitted in the discourse against ethnic minorities. This was the concern expressed within the discourse firstly in 2006 and again in 2007 of a potential ‘muslimisation’ of Australia. These discursive events demonstrate that there has emerged in the discourse a high level of fear and anxiety in the community about Australian Muslims expressing their faith and consolidating their rightful position in the

80 The Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce (AICC) was formed in July 2008 inspired by The United States Minority Business Council (MBC) but is significantly different to the (MBC) due to the dispersal of Australian Indigenous communities in geographically isolated communities distant from centres of urban density. In many respects the AICC is the equivalent of the proposed Council of Elders. The AICC’s function is, ‘… to serve the needs of Indigenous business and to promote opportunities for the creation of relevant and sustainable employment within Indigenous Communities. The AICC recognises that the “Indigenous Estate” comprises approximately 20% of the Australian land mass with an estimated additional 13% of Australia’s forests under Indigenous ownership and that education is central to the economic progress of Aboriginal people’ (AICC 2008: 2).

205 Australian community. An enunciative modality that appeared in the data by whites against others was that ‘this is Australia’ which meant that whites believe that they are the rightful owners of the land and they will choose what practices are acceptable. This belief silences the history and culture of Aboriginal nations and their prior ownership of the land. Thus even in relations of power between whites and non-white migrants the issue of who owns the land as a tactic of silence runs deep within the discourse and also shows that power is dispersed throughout all layers of society. Another theme raised by the data was evidence of an erosion of the belief in egalitarianism. This has necessitated a change in practice to ensure that citizens have the necessary skills and knowledge to fully look after their own needs while in their working lives and in retirement through the acceptance of the neo-liberal ideology of ‘user pays’. In this system of thought citizens cannot expect governments and institutions to fully provide for their welfare in times of trouble. This discontinuity occurred at a time of rising unemployment in the late 1970s and has built momentum over the subsequent decades. It also aligns with beliefs associated with neo-liberalism that have permeated western governments since the time of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government in 1979. In Australia, the Hawke-Keating Labor Governments (1983-1996) and the Howard Liberal Government (1996-2007) focussed their policies on micro-economic reform. This reform process included the imposition of a ‘user pays’ philosophy to ensure that Australia remained a ‘competitive economy’. The economic changes that were used by these governments were part of a global push to keep inflation low, wages growth to a minimum and interest rates also at a low rate. This form of neo-liberalism or market capitalism focuses on the need to provide economic stability to citizens so that they can achieve their individual wealth potential in a stable society. This system of thought and action has encouraged greater individual economic freedom for those enabled by its mission. These economic reforms have produced citizens with increasing prosperity. In Australia some are concerned that the focus on ‘user pays’ has eroded the communal spirit for the sake of the economy (Argy, 2003; Gittins 2004a and 2004b; McGregor 2001; Pusey 2003 and Saunders 2005). Unfortunately those not enabled by the mission of neo-liberalism have been left behind. An essential feature to counter this belief is the practice of ethics which emphasises the need for citizens to be productive rather

206 than to be consumptive and to focus not simply on oneself but the needs of others (Singer 1997; 2002 and Singer and Gregg 2004). For citizenship to be fairer and to reach its potential of limited domination all citizens should have the opportunity to decide how to balance their lives between consumptive and, ethical and sustainable practices. This balance could be done through examples such as: • educational practices in secondary schools and universities that teach ethics as a component of every course; • laws that make ethical behaviour a central plank of corporate governance; • Government subsidies and tax relief could also be provided for those citizens who produce their own food and energy and reduce their carbon emissions could also promote sustainability; • the continued growth of the so-called ‘green collar’ jobs to create environmentally sustainable communities should also be encouraged through specific tax and payroll relief to employers providing such employment . In essence the increasing interest in ‘citizenship’ has occurred because society has viewed it as the most effective way to regulate individuals to produce effective citizens who can contribute to the development of the state. Citizenship has been used as a system of rules, values and obligations for citizens to comply with the needs of the state in an attempt to create a cohesive nation during times of mass migration, increasing secularism and the retreat of government from social services. In this way citizenship is the ultimate form of governmentality that produces effective self-regulating individuals. The analysis of the discourse of citizenship shows that it produces effective citizens while also producing and re-producing racism and prejudice. The discourse of citizenship demonstrates that there is a capacity to enable and produce effective citizens but if greater social justice is to prevail for all Australians more efforts are needed throughout society to address this problem. These efforts include a treaty with the Indigenous Peoples of Australia, the promotion of greater understanding between whites and non-white migrants and Muslims through education and finally the promotion of sustainable social and economic practices.

207 The re-thinking of citizenship to create change in thought, speech and action can also occur through the activation of academic research in the form of the publication of studies and papers, which emphasise its discursive properties. Academic texts have the potential to shape the discourse (Foucault 1980). Research also performs an important function within discourse to ensure the production of well-informed citizens who have the potential to think, speak and act in ways that shape the discourse as, ‘… individuals are the vehicles of power not its point of application’ (Foucault 1980: 98). I hope that this investigation into re-thinking Australian citizenship will be used by future researchers and historians to assist their understanding of not only the discourse but most importantly themselves and their relationships, both real and imagined with other citizens and residents of Australia.

208 Appendices

Appendix 1: The discourse of citizenship leading up to 26 January 2007 The research has also identified a recent trend of ‘national catharsis’ associated with Australia Day. The national catharsis relates to an increase in the reporting of citizenship concerns and controversies leading up to Australia Day. This trend emerged in 1988 and was evidenced again in 1997 and 2004. It became evident again in 2007 the final year in the specified period of analysis. In 2007 the announcement of the renaming of the Immigration Ministry to include the title ‘Citizenship’ and to remove the word ‘multiculturalism’ from government policy was made during a controversy over the alleged banning of all national flags including the Australian flag by concert organiser Ken West at a rock concert ‘The Big Day Out’. The concert in Sydney is usually on January 25, the day before Australia Day and has been done so since 1993. The concert attracts crowds of approximately 50,000. The flag ban was put in place by the concert organiser who was concerned over the misuse of the flag at ‘The Big Day Out’ in January 2006 which was only a month after the Cronulla race riots. During the all day concert on 25 January 2006 some peaceful patrons were accosted by youths draped in the Australian flag and were then told to kiss the flag to demonstrate their allegiance to Australia. Those who refused were verbally and physically abused by the flag wearers. Although a seemingly small event the use of racism disguised as nationalism with threats of violence caused the promoter to instigate the discouragement of all national flags for the 2007 ‘Big Day Out’. This ban was considered ‘un-Australian’ and the promoter was forced to back-down on the ban. Ken West’s decision came a week after approximately 100 flag waving Serbian and Croatian supporters, presumably Australian citizens or residents attacked each other during the Australian Tennis Open in Melbourne prior to the commencement of a tennis match between a Serbian national and a Croatian national. The melee was reported to have lasted for 30 minutes before police and security were able to disperse the mobs. A Serbian tennis player participating at the tournament stated that Croats and Serbs played against each other in tennis matches all around the world ‘but this only happens here’.

209 Simultaneous to these a third ‘event’ was the reporting of a race hate video that had been made by current and former students of Granville Boys’ High School in Sydney’s south-western suburbs which had been placed on the Internet site ‘YouTube’ under the title ‘lebo thugs’ in January 2007. The short video accompanied a rap song that mentioned Gallipoli with images of serial gang rapist Bilal Skaf with a rifle on his lap, footage of a Cronulla riot revenge attack, a ceremonial knife and a map of Australia in the colours of the Lebanese flag with the words ‘under new management’. The Prime Minister commented by stating that, ‘(I)t’s a reminder that there is undoubtedly within a section, a small section, of the Lebanese Muslim community a group of people who are antagonistic to the values and the way of life in this country’ (Gibson 2007). The video and the Prime Minister’s comments received wide publicity in newspapers, radio and television news reports despite the fact that a large number of race hate videos are available to be viewed on the same site promoting white supremacy and the vilification of Muslims. This climatic build-up to Australia Day 2007 presented further evidence that the struggle for the dominance of ideas within the discourse of Australian citizenship is part of the ongoing dynamic circulation of discourse. This circulation is an effect of individual thought, speech and action, the authorisation of knowledge and the control of truth through the internal workings of the discourse and the shaping of the discourse through exteriorities such as globalisation and neo-liberalism.

Appendix 2: Additional articles This section of the Appendices has additional analysed texts that were not needed in the body of the thesis as they repeated previously stated information or their relationship to citizenship was not as significant as the chosen texts for that particular year. I have included them in this section to add further weight to the evidence provided in Chapter Five. Additional texts for the years 1953, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006 are included in this section.

210 1953 additional texts of significance The first text Australians live on a borrowed tradition (p2) is a report from the Summer School of the Institute of Political Science in Canberra by anthropologist Caroline Kelly. She was speaking on the social impact of non-white immigrants or ‘New Australians’ to the Australian cultural mix by stating that, “(W)e tried to think of ourselves as British and then British Australians but neither of these … has got to the problem that we are Australian in a new world and evolving a new pattern of life.” In the above quote ‘we’ means ‘whites’ and Aboriginals are again marginalised. Kelly was attempting to explain the changing nature of white identity. Another speaker Dr. Krieger, the general secretary of the New Citizens’ Association in Sydney, in relation to migrants stated that, “… the more we convey to them a feeling that they are equals among equals the better and more painless will be their assimilation.” Migrants are quietly ‘othered’ through the use of the word ‘them’ and their assimilation is inevitable while the Indigenous are ignored in this system of thought. The Pulpit Equality of Man (p2) reports that the Australia Day homily from the Reverend C. Denis Ryan Killara Congregational Church that Australia Day was a ‘propitious time’ to ‘honour all men…’ and that ‘“All men” includes the aborigines, migrants and people in whom we disagree in matters political, economic and cultural’. Again as in the 1946 texts the Church is placed as the authority on race relations and attempts to include Aboriginals as part of the discourse of citizenship.

1958 additional texts of significance The example of enunciative modalities that promote racist discourse are further heightened by the front page headline ‘Japs Try Coup’ in reference to the Japanese governments attempts to achieve leverage in Japanese owned companies’ contract negotiations to build dams in Australia’s Snowy Mountains. Japan was Australia’s biggest importer of Australian wool and the article links the value of the export for Australia as its weak link in the negotiations with the Japanese. In this way the Japanese are derided as ‘Japs’ and as commercial bullies who as a recent enemy in World War Two are still not to be trusted.

211 This front-page coverage is linked through its report on ‘Asians’ to the other front-page report entitled ‘RAAF jets to go north’. This text reports on the growing importance to Western powers, particularly for the Australian air force, of the Butterworth base in Malaya. The report also mentions the movement of the Australian jets to Malaya which was kept top secret because of, ‘… Australia’s touchy diplomatic relations with part-Communist Indonesia.’ The term ‘part- Communist’ is not explained but the use of the term ‘Communist’ alerts the reader to the fact that an enemy aligned with the other communist powers in Asia, that is China and North Korea, are situated only a thousand miles to Australia’s north. The social meaning within these texts is that Asians are not to be trusted, have communist tendencies, and remain a threat to Australian sovereignty. Thus the front page alone adds to the construction of ‘others’ and the external threat to ‘whites’ who therefore are in an undeclared war against others who would dissipate the purity of white blood by allowing the White Australia Policy to decrease in importance. This discourse is strengthened by the subsequent articles that deal with the nature of Aboriginality and the tension that exists between those calling for greater equality for Aboriginals such as Calley and those who are maintaining the traditional discourse of white supremacy, purity and the segregation of Aboriginals.

1962 additional text of significance Another text from this edition ‘‘A Touch of Welcome” Japanese ‘Adopted’ By Blind Airman has an accompanying front-page photograph of Mr Don Farquhar with his foster daughter Yoko Miyazaki with the caption, ‘His fingers “see” a pretty face …’ The first paragraph of the text states that, “A middle-aged former R.A.A.F. officer blinded in an air attack over Rabaul in 1942, now has a 16 year-old Japanese foster daughter”. She was the first Japanese student brought to Australia under the Rotary International student exchange program. This is the first example from the 1946-1962 editions of the word ‘Japanese’ being used rather than the term ‘Jap’. This is part of an emerging discontinuity as it shows a change in understanding about Australians’ relationships with the Japanese people. Significantly the enonce ‘Jap’ and ‘Jap.’ disappear from the discourse from this time onwards. In this way the use of the word ‘Japanese’ is another example of a transformation in the discourse. The use of the word ‘Welcome’ in the front page

212 headline also suggests that non-whites in this instance Asians can be accepted into the broader context of Australian society without disruption to traditional Australian values as they now pose no threat. This text shifts characteristic forms of power/knowledge81 allowing for cultural equality to be voiced as allowable within the discourse of citizenship. This edition has texts of significance that add to understandings of shifts in power/knowledge at the limits of the discourse. In 1962 according to the text it was acceptable to view Australia as a multi-racial country, to allow Aboriginals to play an equal part in Australia Day ceremonies and for texts to celebrate an Australian pilot blinded while fighting the Japanese during World War Two participating in a student exchange program which allowed a Japanese student to Australia to complete her secondary studies. This is an important year in the discourse from 1946 – 2007.

1963 additional text of significance This view is embedded with the front page story where the Prime Minister Robert Menzies states that Australians must be thankful for, “… our law, our justice, our freedom”. These are ‘our’ laws that discriminated against Aboriginals, ‘our’ justice system that did not recognise the rights of Aboriginals and ‘our’ freedom that segregated Aboriginals in missions and reserves from whites and excluded them from property ownership, freedom of movement equal education and employment opportunities and numerous other rights all white Australians expected as part of the social contract. This demonstrates the power of these enonces to shape and maintain the discourse through a process described by Foucault (1971a) as ‘rarefaction’. This is when enonces are seemingly incontrovertible, rational and reasonable that they become embedded in systems of thought.

1968 additional text of significance Also in the 1968 edition a notice “Registration for National Service” (p.5) from the Commonwealth of Australia appears stating that, “(A)ll male persons resident in Australia whether British or non-British whether born in Australia or elsewhere whose twentieth birthday falls in the period 1st January 1968 to 30th June 1968 must register for

81 In Michel Foucault Power/Knowledge pp 92-100 his lecture from 1976 discusses how power operates.

213 national service between 22 January 1968 and 5th February 1968”. It details how to register, when, early, exemptions and the consequences of failing to register. Of interest are the three groups who were exempt, “… certain diplomatic personnel, aboriginal natives of Australia and full time serving members of the Permanent Naval, Military or Air Forces.” The notice does not state why ‘aboriginal natives’ are exempt from national Service as from May 1967 Aboriginal Australians had full citizenship with the Federal Government taking over the legal responsibility from the states to make laws for their benefit. In the enunciative modality of ‘aboriginal native’ the use of the lower case ‘a’ again appears but it could be argued that it suggests that Aboriginals are incapable of dealing with the discipline required for military service as they are inferior to whites despite Aborigines having fought for Australia from 1914 to this time (Hall 1989). This is the last time that the lower case ‘a’ in Aboriginal appears in the discourse. Having achieved full citizenship rights in 1967 Aboriginals from this point through the symbolism of ‘capitalisation’ are given equality with whites in the discourse. This is an example of Foucault’s theory which states that discourses, '… are to be treated as practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak' (1989a:74).

1970 January 27 additional texts of significance In the text Gift for Aborigines reports on the Minister for Social Services, Mr W. C. Wentworth who presented a cheque for $15,000 to the Aboriginal Advancement Society. The money was to be used to create a hostel for Aboriginal girls from outside Sydney to complete their secondary education. The gift acknowledges educational disadvantage through removing geographical isolation and creating greater access to secondary schooling for Aboriginal girls living outside Sydney. This text acknowledges inequality and the government’s attempts to improve educational outcomes through specific resource allocation. This demonstrates an emerging understanding of the impacts of inequality on Aboriginals. Another text from 1970 Admission of Asians (p. 2) is a letter to the editor from J. Pickering, Grose Ponte Woods, Michigan USA who warns Australians not to allow Asian students to stay in Australia after the completion of their studies otherwise having large numbers of Asians will, “… create problems which might not be solved in 100 years …

214 My own country, America, is now in a most serious state of oppressive fear … due to racial sorrow, which will not be solved in 100 years. Most Americans I know praise the Australian Immigration policy as wise and sound.” The text encourages debate on immigration but it is an inflammatory letter which demonstrates the writer’s inherent racism and her promotion of resistance to forces of change. It also highlights the beginning in Australia of the globalisation of education82.

1972 additional texts of significance The editorial text Land rights mentions that land rights means different things to different people. It states that, “(I)f strictly European criteria of economic viability are applied, many –perhaps even most- applicants will be hard put to it to get their enterprise started, or to survive once they have begun operating …” The editorial calls the newly announced policy ‘an uneasy compromise’ as the Council for Aboriginal Affairs wanted land rights while the government has placed caveats on how the land is used based on traditional western assumptions of ‘productive’ land use. The front page text What They Said quotes from Mrs Faith Bandler the general secretary of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. She was a leader in the constitutional change in May 1967. She stated in the text that, ‘(A)borigines should have absolute right to their own land and not be given slices of it with strings attached. White people could not understand that land was part of an Aboriginal’. In the article Aborigines: PM spells it out (p7-9) reprints the 5,000 word policy statement entitled, “… Australian Aborigines – Commonwealth policy and achievements”. The policy states that, ‘… since the referendum of 1967, through which the Australian people recognised Aborigines as members of one Australian society…’ The policy ends with a concluding statement, ‘(T)he desire to encourage Aboriginal citizens to share fully in Australia’s national life and preserve their own culture as they wish is a continuing one, and a responsibility for all of us.’ As an enunciative modality this is significant as it shows a transformation in thought. It is the first time that government has authorised the preservation of Aboriginal culture while fully sharing in Australia’s national life.

82 Arjun Appadurai discusses this emerging trend in Grassroots Globalization and the Research Imagination, in Public Culture Volume 12, Number 1, Winter 2000 pp. 1-20.

215 1976 additional text of significance The text, ‘139 receive Order of Aust’ (p1) states that, “(N)ew members include the Aboriginal tenor Mr Harold Blair …” As in the 1969 edition Aboriginals in the discourse can now be acknowledged for their services to the arts. Furthermore the discourse transmits knowledge that authorises citizens to acknowledge the significant cultural role of Aboriginals in Australian society. The word Aboriginal is capitalised and he is given the title of ‘Mr’.

1977 additional text of significance The 1977 text ‘Macquarie Place – an oasis full of history’ (p2) discusses that Macquarie Place has been transformed as an ‘oasis in the city’ by closing it to traffic. “History abounds in this small precinct.” The history that is mentioned in the text is the history of whites. No mention is made of the Aboriginal owners of this land or their use of it before the arrival of the British in 1788. This continues the theme re-introduced by an authorised voice in 1976 of the dominance of white history.

1978 additional texts of significance

The only text of significance in 1978 is a letter to the editor ‘Respecting Australia Day’ which denies Aboriginal ownership of Australia. In reference to the British who arrived on the First Fleet it uses the words ‘we’ and ‘our’ as enunciative modalities. The text written by John K Lavett, the Chairman of the Australia Day Movement states that, “(W)hen we recall our beginnings … a tremendous gap between the upper and lower strata of society (existed) … Now we are … a people with whom class distinction is practically non-existent…” In this way ‘we’ and ‘our’ means whites. Aborigines are not part of this society they are not participants in the concept of egalitarianism. His assertion that ‘class distinction is practically non-existent’ does not relate to Indigenous society with its high rate of unemployment, low education attainment, low health status and high rates of incarceration. This continues the practice that silences Aboriginal history which as a form of exclusion which produces as Foucault (1981) states rarefaction of specific ideas in the discursive framework.

216 1979 additional texts of significance In the following day’s edition 27/1/79:3 ‘Yunupingu is Australian of the Year’ includes a picture of Mr Yunupingu with an Australia Day badge. The article states, ‘…Mr Yunupingu was named Australian of the Year because of his role in negotiating the Ranger uranium agreement. He said he was personally honoured by the award, but that it was also a breakthrough for the Aboriginal people. “We are at last being recognised as the indigenous people of this country who must share in its future. This is not a day of national mourning for us. It is a day of rejoicing. We must leave history behind us and look forward.” By placing the achievement of Yunupingu as the centrepiece of Australia Day the text acknowledges the positive role Aboriginals have in Australian society and moves the discourse of citizenship to new areas. The capitalisation of ‘Aboriginal’ is now embedded in the discourse of citizenship.

1981 additional texts of significance Patriots all states that Australians are, “… an unassuming, undemonstrative lot’ who should not feel guilty about not wearing ‘our patriotism on our sleeves.’” This asserts that to be Australian one needs to be unassuming and undemonstrative in relation to the national day. The text is asserting that there is a national character trait and therefore those that do not follow this pattern are different from what is normal. As an enunciative modality the assumption is that these traits are associated with a monocultural Australia that is ‘white Australia’.

1984 additional texts of significance The 1984 edition has a number of texts of significance. The first ‘Aboriginal art moves up into the culture market’ (p2) has an accompanying photograph of Wild Potato Dreaming by the artist Johnny Warankula Tjupurrula. This text states that Aboriginal art was shown in New York art galleries and that there are over 5,000 Aboriginal artists. It states that, ‘(T)oday their work is becoming recognised in the art world as the only totally Australian art’. This article tells the reader that people outside of Australia have made a judgement that Aboriginal artists have created the ‘only totally Australian art’ thus its value as cultural artefacts has been authorised by authorities outside of Australia. As

217 indicated by Appadurai (1996; 2000) citizenship practices respond to global economic, political or cultural concerns. The discourse has shifted in that it is now permissible to acknowledge that Aboriginals have a cultural heritage that can be appreciated as has been done in New York. The text encourages all Australians to view Aboriginal art in the light of international interest.

1988 additional texts of significance The next text of significance ‘First Fleeters to drop wreath in the harbour’ (p2) reports on a signed statement published as an advertisement by the ‘First Fleet Re-enactment’ in the Sydney Morning Herald. Quoting from the advertisement the article states, ‘(T)he way in which Aboriginal society has been disregarded and almost destroyed since the arrival of Captain Phillip’s fleet must now be recognised. Their needs must be acknowledged, their protests today must be heeded.’ This text is significant because the relatives of the First Fleeters are distancing themselves from the relations of power between whites and Aboriginals that has seen ‘…Aboriginal society … disregarded and almost destroyed’. The next article ‘Not a day for pride or shame’ (p3) is an opinion piece which states, ‘…every year wave after wave of new migrants arrive here, from everywhere on earth. It’s a process that has been going on for 200 years now, ever since the first Europeans arrived and, on this very day, dispossessed the Aboriginal people of a land which had been theirs for at least 40,000 years. In that single act of conquest, which is what it was, and in nearly everything which has happened between black and white Australians since, lies the justification for the Aboriginal protest which will take place today and the non-Aboriginal support for it, from Gerry Hand onwards. That appalling history has been enough to make a lot of Australians boycott the Bicentenary altogether: there’s nothing to celebrate about, only a record of violence and racism which we are still finding out about and which Fleet reaches the ‘finest harbour in the universe’ (p11). This continues the theme of dispossession and racism building on the previous texts from this edition. The use of the enonces of ‘conquest’, ‘violence’ and ‘racism’ together with the term ‘appalling history’ again solidifies the permission to criticise the treatment of Aboriginals by whites. It is a further authorisation that prohibits a belief that Aboriginals

218 had been treated reasonably by whites throughout Australia’s history. In this way exclusion is a productive force. Additionally the use of the enonce ‘black’ in this article is linked to the word ‘Australia’ and does not dehumanise Aboriginals as in previous texts as the dominant group are called ‘whites’. Its purpose is to separate and highlight issues related to the treatment of black Australians by white Australians. The edition from the following day (27:1:88) has two texts of significance. The first is an annotated photograph entitled ‘The great land grab of 1988’ (p.1). The text reads, ‘(I)t was a lesson in land rights when about two million people came to share a few square kilometres of Sydney Harbour foreshore to see the ships yesterday.’ The text implies through the use of the statement ‘…a lesson in land right’s’ that if Aboriginals could follow the example of whites and ‘invade’ those areas they believed to be rightfully theirs than through possession they would have a right to the land. The text in essence is suggesting that the powerful will always dominate the weak and that this position is a historical reality. By making light of the calls for land rights the text permits criticism of Aboriginal land rights and equality and is a form of resistance. The second text (27:1:88) Blacks boo royal pair on barge (p.1) states that, ‘Aborigines protesting against white Bicentenary celebrations booed the Prince and the Princess of Wales as they passed near Mrs Macquarie’s Chair in an admiral’s barge on the Harbour yesterday. There were two separate Aboriginal protest marches in the city, in one of which the Secretary of the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Charles Perkins, walked. The overall tone of the protests was peaceful.’ As in the previous day’s edition the enonce of ‘blacks’ dehumanises Aboriginals. By using this enonce it highlights differences with the dominant white group rather than commonalities. It is another example of ‘othering’ from this edition that uses a technique of dehumanisation when Aboriginals criticise or protest against the dominant white group. When Aboriginals comply with white standards the enonce ‘black’ is not used. This is another manifestation in the discourse of power/knowledge.

1989 additional texts of significance This edition also contained what the paper called a ‘Souvenir Edition’ titled An Australia Day special on the two critical issues now facing the nation – multiculturalism and

219 conservation. From this section of the newspaper came the following text, ‘Heralding the dawn of our Asian era’ (p2s). The text comments on how Aboriginal Australians were affronted by the celebrations of 1988 but, ‘… they are every bit as much part of the start of our Asian centuries as anyone else.’ It implies that Aboriginals need to forget about past treatment by whites and embrace the new possibilities of closer ties to Asia. The use of the enonce ‘they’ and ‘our’ in the text is another form of othering the Aboriginals. Unlike the previous year’s edition the words ‘black’ and ‘blacks’ have not been used when referring to Aboriginals. A possible explanation for this technique of power is that Aboriginals have not been reported in this edition as having criticised whites or protested against them and so it is not necessary to use the enonces of ‘black’ or ‘blacks’. The text also discusses a ruling by the High Court from September 1988 that states that British subjects were considered ‘aliens’ under Australian law which ‘…sounded the death knell of our two centuries of Britishness.’ It suggested to, ‘… drink a toast to a coming Asian century in our national life full of promise and challenge.’ The text is suggesting that it is more important to look to the future and forget about the complexities of Australia’s past. According to Foucault (1971) the technique of exclusion continues to advance the discourse and can be seen as a productive agent. In the text Greater foresight is needed in the immigration debate (p2s) the article reports that Australians need to be more aware of the cultural change that will occur with increased migration from Asia. This text permits a greater acceptance of Asian migrants in order for Australia to improve economically and culturally and encourages all Australians to use this form of normative thinking. The purpose of such a position according to Pusey (2003) is a practice of globalisation that redefines our personal lives and reshapes ‘our dispositions’ and ‘orientations towards others’ (2003:xiii). The following day’s edition 27/1/89 ‘Music bridges the race gap’ (p.5) reports on an album by bands including Midnight Oil, INXS and Crowded House that was being launched to raise funds for the National Coalition of Aboriginal Organisations (NCAO). The project called ‘Building Bridges’ was launched at the Bondi Pavilion with a live performance by the bands Midnight Oil and ‘the Aboriginal band’ Mixed Relations. This text suggests to readers that although multiculturalism is increasing fundamental social concerns still exist between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Although political

220 solutions may not be moving to a greater equality for Aboriginals, artists as authorised voices are drawing attention to the issue of racism through the politicisation of their lyrics and music.

1990 additional text of significance In the 1990 edition the text Australia Day in perspective discusses a concern that the celebration of Australia Day is not held on the same day across the nation. NSW, Queensland, the ACT and the Northern Territory observe Australia Day on the 26 January but the other states Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria observe it on the following Monday. The text takes the view that our true national day is Anzac Day and that Australia Day is of more interest to the Eastern states as, ‘… the date on which the First Fleet arrived and began the process of modern nation building in this ancient land.’ In this text ‘the process of modern nation building’ is an enunciative modality it suggests Indigenous dispossession as a necessity. This process whereby the modern nation was created occurred through the dispossession and segregation of Aboriginals is not discussed. The statement ‘the process of modern nation building’ is an enunciative modality as it silences the discussion of how the process affected the people of ‘this ancient land’ and is a manifestation of power/knowledge.

1991 additional text of significance In the text Celebrate – it’s all we’ve got going for us (p. 22-23) the author Tom Kenneally summarises the peculiar nature and meaning of Australia Day. Firstly that it is the beginning of ‘the sovereignty of the Crown…’ Secondly, ‘…if you are not Aboriginal, Australia has always seen itself in part as a place where the dispossessed and the disenfranchised get a go.’ And further, ‘…from that day in 1788, everyone began a vigil which has not yet ended, a wait for a supply ship, for bounties and kindnesses sent from another hemisphere. On that day we began our career as cargo-cultists. January 26 is a celebration of the dependence which is the dominant orientation of our national soul… So Australia Day can never be unambiguous. It celebrates our greatest virtues and our most persistent neuroses.’ In this text, the enonce ‘our’ means ‘whites’. This acknowledges that the concept of egalitarianism is racially based and transmits the belief

221 that ‘modern Australia’ is not inclusive of Aboriginal society. This is the first-time that such a position on egalitarianism has been expressed in the discourse. In the following day’s edition (27/1/91) The Sun Herald’s editorial, A great Australian (p.30) reports on the work of Professor Fred Hollows who was named Australian of the Year. He is promoted as, ‘… a tireless crusader for underprivileged people around the world … (he) treated trachoma and other eye diseases in thousands of Aborigines and has fearlessly campaigned for better health programs for them.’ This text is significant because it promotes the work of Professor Fred Hollows in assisting thousands of Aborigines. It authorises activities that improve the health of Indigenous people not only at the medical level but also at the political level with the enonce of ‘…fearlessly campaigned…’

1993 additional text of significance The text ‘A label that Mandawuy will wear with pride’ (p3) states, “I feel as if I’m Yolagu (Aboriginal) first, it comes from the heart … Australia is just 200 years old. What I believe is we were a nation before another nation took over … I’m proud to be an Australian … The colonisation that happened … (is) part of history. But I tend to look beyond that – to stopping being a victim. Things will change.” This transmits the view that nations existed ‘before another nation took over’. As an enunciative modality it permits knowledge of the existence of Aboriginal nations before the arrival of whites.

1995 additional text of significance The text A reason to celebrate (p16) also from 1995 states that Australia day is a day to celebrate because ‘…it unites us rather than divides us’. The second paragraph justifies British possession because European settlement was inevitable and that the British were more civilised than any other colonial power. The article suggests an alternative date due to Aboriginal sensitivity to 26 January. This text authorises the position that Aboriginal sensitivities to Australia Day are legitimate and should be acknowledged and transmits a similar compassion to the 1993 edition but foregrounds historical inevitability.

222 1996 additional text of significance The edition 27/1/96 has the text ‘Racist comment strains coalition’ (p.5) which reports from the Federal National Party candidate for the seat of Leichhardt in Far North Queensland Mr Bob Burgess who called Australia Day Citizenship ceremonies ‘dewogging ceremonies’. This text is showing the growing rupture between what is permitted and what is prohibited to say within the discourse of citizenship about race relations. This is the first time that the word ‘dewogging’ from the word ‘wog’ a derogatory term for immigrants from Europe, was transmitted on Australia Day. The discourse rather than producing through constraint as theorised by Foucault (1981) is now producing through permissions rather than prohibitions. Alternatively the use of the enonce ‘dewogging’ could be explained tenuously through Foucaultian theory as a form of resistance to what was previously understood within the discourse. In this way resistance is productive in that new permissions are accepted.

1997 additional text of significance The other two texts also from 27/1/97 Carl Lewis to give Redfern helping hand (p.1) and Nod to Aboriginal flag (p.1) authorise the view that Aboriginals have been treated poorly by whites. The first text reports on the athletes Carl Lewis and Cathy Freeman at a Redfern Park workshop for young Aboriginal athletes. The second text reports on a Herald-AGB McNair Poll that showed 66 per cent of voters would support ‘… using the Aboriginal flag as part of the design for a new Australian flag’. These texts provide evidence that normative thinking on matters of reconciliation are becoming more common place and are not simply a domain of knowledge possessed by authorised voices such as the Governor-General William Deane.

1998 additional text of significance In the 1998 text, Australia day honours list? (p.16) the Australian honours system is described as ‘un-Australian’ because it reflects the British class system in that only recipients with high status jobs can receive the highest honours. This is only the second appearance of the enonce ‘un-Australian’ in the discourse of citizenship. It first appeared in an advertisement in 1967. The text praises Mr Keating, the former Prime Minister’s

223 refusal in 1997 to accept the honour of becoming a Companion in the Order of Australia on the grounds that the honours system does not reflect his vision of an egalitarian society. This theme of egalitarianism is also present in the text ‘Top Aussie Cathy calls for a fair go’ where the Aboriginal Australian athlete Cathy Freeman as Australian of the Year called for a ‘fair go’ for all including Aboriginals. This is further evidence of the use of resistance to circulate the discourse.

1999 additional texts of significance In the following day’s edition 27/1/99 Rising costs force students out of school (p.3) reports on the charity organisation the Smith Family warning that rising costs are driving many students from disadvantaged families out of school. This text hints at growing poverty and structural disadvantage that is eroding (white) egalitarianism. As an enunciative modality it permits an understanding that poverty is increasing and that the children of the disadvantaged have increasingly less educational opportunities. It also permits an understanding that the public education system designed to end disadvantage is not fulfilling its mission. Further knowledge of Australia being an egalitarian society are constantly being challenged by new enonces circulating in the discourse. In this edition 27/1/99 Aborigines condemn Howard and declare day of mourning (p.6) reports on Aboriginal groups accusing the Prime Minister of failing to take reconciliation seriously as the Federal Government again ignored calls for a treaty by 2001. The enonce of reconciliation is present and this text is the first to include the enunciative modality of an Aboriginal treaty or ‘treaty’ which had been in circulation at least since the early 1990s but makes its first appearance here. This enonce authorises the position that Aboriginals have been racially discriminated against, dispossessed and segregated from white communities and a formal written acknowledgement needs to be formulated to this effect by both groups. The editorial from 27/1/99 A migrant nation still (p.12) transmits the theme of the important contribution migrants have made to Australia and also the effects of colonisation on the Indigenous. The text reports on a speech by Dr O’Donoghue’s who stated that January 26 was, “…a day signifying for my people invasion, conquest, dispossession and, for many, death”. It also reports on the NSW Premier Bob Carr’s

224 defence of January 26 where he stated that, “… to understand, to celebrate, commemorate and, yes, mourn, our nation’s history – in its entirety.” The many stories should be honoured … and these include “that of the Aborigine, the convict … the migrant, the refugee”. This text authorises the position that Aboriginals have been racially discriminated against, dispossessed and segregated from white communities while migrant communities have been embraced. This text again highlights the growing division in the discourse and the relations of power between whites and Aboriginals. Importantly the discourse continues to permit Aborigines to express criticism of the intent and effects of ‘colonisation’ which to Aboriginals was an ‘invasion’. This tradition first emerged in 1984 and as part of the ‘rarefaction of discourse’ in embedded by 1999.

2000 additional text of significance The text Australia Day in 2000 from the 2000 edition authorises the position that Australia Day is a day to celebrate Australian culture and the growth of a unique nation that has survived the brutality of a convict settlement. It also repeats the views of Dr O’Donoghue and Mr Carr from 27:1:99 that Aboriginals received unequal treatment which led to dispossession, segregation and for many Aboriginals, death. The domination within the discourse is attempting to prohibit the view that Australia was peacefully settled. This effect of discourse to replace one domination with another is indicated by Foucault (1981) as a way for the discourse to stay in existence and remain in circulation.

2002 additional texts of significance In the text Carr makes a call on the greatest of them all … and the debate begins (p3) according to Premier Bob Carr, ‘Governor Arthur Phillip … was proud to dine in his home with Sydney’s most powerful Aboriginal warriors…’ The Premier also stated that Aboriginal society in the time of the arrival of the Europeans was one of constant warfare with women being treated horrifically. He stated, “I don’t think we can idealise the hunter-gatherer culture here before 1788”. This enunciative modality attempts to justify dispossession through a process of white pacification that improved relations between Aboriginal nations and subsequently between Aboriginal men and women. This enonce

225 authorises the view that Aboriginals were not civilised like whites and needed to be given boundaries by white authority. In the final text from the 2002 edition, ‘Wave away any notion of identity – its too early yet’ (p24) states, ‘(T)he truth about us is the truth about all human societies: we are a complex and self-contradictory mixture of all the factors – attractive and unattractive – that make humans such a fascinating and infuriating species… National identity? You’ve got to be joking.’ This text moves the discourse away from a belief in a national trait such as egalitarianism and authorises the view that discussion of a national trait is far too simplistic a notion to entertain. Through the use of exclusion the discourse is productive.

2004 additional texts of significance In the 2004 text Protecting those most vulnerable (p.14) the issue of Mental Health is discussed. The text states that ‘People who are mentally ill and attempt suicide would be able to be detained. This would be a necessary shift away from the rights of the individual, and towards protection of the individual and society’. This text is a plea for social justice and equality for disadvantaged groups. Mental illness and poverty co-exist and by emphasising the rights of this minority group the text authorises a more humane understanding and treatment of mental illness. In the text A lot of hot-headed talk, but so little learnt about a major social shift (p15) reports on an ongoing major social shift in Australia. This social shift is occurring in schools where enrolments in private schools are increasing at the expense of government schools. The text states that what is happening in the schools is a reflection of what is happening in society. Schools in effect are microcosms of society. The text transmits that such a position is a consequence of Australia’s change from a blue-collar to a white-collar nation. This transmits the view that citizens with greater skills and knowledge will succeed in this new society. Those with enterprise serve themselves and ultimately the state by their own hard-work and are rewarded for their efforts (see Marginson 1994; Root 2007). The text A fair go for all in a cool, light nation (p15) discusses the promotion of materialism within a classless society. This text links with ‘A tale of rich and poor, and the growing stretch in between’ which discusses the growth of materialism reformulating

226 understandings of Australia as a classless society. Materialism is creating a stronger perception in society that the reality of ‘a growing economic divide’ has developed and has been accepted within society as a fixture that cannot be changed. Again this transmits the idea that egalitarianism has ended and individuals must not rely on the government or the community to assist them, that individuals must help themselves. This is further evidence of ‘rarefaction’ of this concept and the growing importance of practices associated with enterprise citizenship. In the text ‘Let’s look at the world upside down’ (p15) the director of the Australian Centre for Indigenous History at the Australian National University Anne McGrath states that, ‘Only with strong, innovative and inclusive historical scholarship can we learn to know ourselves and those key values that will be crucial to designing our future.’ She explains how through new understandings or ‘discursive permission’ white Australians came to terms with their colonial beginnings as the descendants of thieves and whores during the 1988 bicentennial celebrations. This discursive permission could change the understandings about the historical stories that Indigenous Australians are willing to share. She states that, ‘(I)t is the historical imagination, preceded by quality research that will enable Australians to find out more about us, to reflect upon the diversity of people and experiences of our past that we have embraced and reacted against.’ This text authorises the view that history can be re-interpreted and that ideas that were once prohibited can become permitted through the practice of historical imagination (see Foucault 1980). This is further evidence of increasing understanding of the workings of power/knowledge and its conditioning effects on society

2006 additional texts of significance The text If people want their independence, it’s their move (p. 11) promotes the view that Australia has unfinished business. The text states that the Premier Morris Iemma referred to two pieces of unfinished business. The first was the move to a republic and the second was a need for Aboriginal reconciliation. This text authorises the view that reconciliation and republicanism are the only way for Australia to move forward as an international nation.

227 In the following day’s edition 27/1/06 the text Let unskilled workers in, Australia told (p.1) states that, ‘Australia will have to open its doors to potentially tens of thousands of unskilled migrants to save its smaller Pacific island neighbours from economic ruin, a report commissioned by the Federal Government has found. … It compares the situation in Melanesia, which has had very limited migration, because of a lack of opportunities, with that in Polynesian countries, which have long had easy access to the labour markets of New Zealand and the United States. Polynesia has as a result experienced higher economic growth, lower population growth, better social indicators and more social stability.’ It authorises the view that multiculturalism will continue to grow in Australia and Australia can play a role in creating stability in the Pacific Region. This belief links in with the text I am, you are, we are a market segment (p. 4) discusses the growing commodification of patriotism particularly during Australia Day ceremonies. ‘Fancy flying the flag today on Bondi Beach? Perhaps you could better show your patriotic spirit by going shopping. That is the message coming from corporate Australia.’ This text authorises the view that a good Australian is a consumer (see Root 2007) further embedding the idea of enterprise citizenship as an example of the rarefaction of the discourse.

2007 additional texts of significance In the text An uneasy life in the melting pot (p.1 wrap-around) the text authorises the view that flag waving could marginalise, ‘Australia’s myriad of faces…’ It uses annotated photographs of migrant stories to show the multifaceted nature of Australia’s immigration program. This text links with Red-faced, white skin, so true blue (p.33) which again discusses the varying views about the flag and a growing sense of aggressive nationalism, previously associated with the elderly now firmly associated with the young. The next text Bit unappetising, this overcooked patriotism (p.36) links with the other texts on the outburst of strong nationalism and the concern that criticism of the over-use of the flag or ‘national pride’ is ‘un-Australian’. The following text Give people reasons to love Australia and they will (p.32) promotes the view that multiculturalism is an Australian value. The text History becoming a thing of the past (p.33) asks whether an understanding of history is required in the modern globalised world. This text authorises

228 the view that the history of Australia is not a necessary knowledge to be able to participate in Australia’s future. It implies that silence about Australian history is necessary if the country is to move forward.

Appendix 3: The five major concepts in citizenship discourse In the tables below results are presented on the five major concepts in citizenship discourse within a given year that relate to Australian citizenship. In the table below the capitalised letters within years refer to the acknowledged actor where: W = white, I = Indigenous, M = migration, migrants, non-white minority, external ‘others’, non-Indigenous E = equality, egalitarianism, P = poverty or inequality U = unknown Where multiple actors appear in texts within a grouping, for example, ‘Articles 1953’ the letters are ordered by either their page reference where page 2, is placed first before page 3 or if multiple actors have texts on the same page order is created by the word length of the article in that the greater the length of the article would mean first position over smaller articles. Where multiple actors either white, Indigenous, migrant or poor are acknowledged within one text a plus sign (+) is used to denote this relationship for example, ‘Letters 1959’. Where an asterisk (*) follows a year for example 1955, this indicates that the newspaper for the date January 26 was not The Sydney Morning Herald but The Sun Herald. Where multiples appear in a grouping, for example ‘Articles 1949’, this denotes that each letter represents one article. In the case of Articles 1949 there are four ‘I’ letters. This represents four articles that voice an Indigenous perspective within the one year. All years from 1946 -2007 have been analysed however there were no majority or minority actors in relation to citizens or citizenship represented based on the above criteria for the years 1966 and 1967 and hence those years have been left intentionally blank. In addition I have separated the ‘Editorial’ and ‘Letters’ as distinct texts. The function of the editorial is to express an opinion in an explicit and dominant manner and

229 it is ‘formulated from the point of view of the newspaper or its editor’ (van Dijk 1988:124). Such a position is created to persuade responders to the newspaper’s position on current and historical affairs. The editorial attempts to ‘contribute to the opinion formation of the reader about a current news event’ (van Dijk 1988:124). They also, as shown in this study, reflect the ideological positions of the dominant group which are then filtered through to some or all of the texts within a particular year grouping. In the case of the published letters for all years with the exception of 1946, they have tended to reflect current issues, events and people of the time and the positions of the editors or newspapers.

Table 7.1 Groupings of the five major concepts in citizenship archive from 1946 – 2007 as represented on 26 January. Year Front Page Articles Editorial Letters Other texts 1946 W I W 1947 W 1948 W 1949 I, I, I, I W W 1950 W 1951 W, M 1952 W 1953 W, E, I 1954 M W 1955* I W 1956 M, M, W 1957 M W, M 1958* W I, W, I W 1959 W W W + M 1960 W, W 1961 I W + M 1962* M W+M, I

230 1963 W W, W 1964* W 1965 E 1966 1967 W+M 1968 W W W 1969* I W 1970 W I I 1971 W I I 1972 I W+I W+I I 1973 I W 1974 M, P M 1975* M, W+I W 1976 I+W W W 1977 W W, P, P 1978 W W 1979 W P, M 1980 W W W 1981 W+I W P 1982 E 1983 I I 1984 I, I, I 1985 I 1986* W+M+I 1987 W+I+M I+M+E, M 1988 I I, I, I, W I+M 1989 W+M I+M, M 1990 W W 1991 W, M+I, I 1992 U W U

231 1993 U I, I W+I 1994 W E 1995 W M 1996 I+E 1997* W,I,M,M,W+M 1998 I W 1999 E 2000 W W+M W+I 2001 I+P I+M 2002 W, W W 2003 I 2004 P, W, E, I, E P 2005 I 2006 W M,C,W,I,M,W,M+E,P E Totals 20 45 36 6 7

232 5

4.5

4

3.5

3 White Indigenous 2.5 Migrant Poverty Equality 2

1.5

1

0.5

0

2 4 2 8 4 8 46 92 4 9 948 950 95 954 956 958 960 962 96 968 970 97 974 976 97 980 982 98 988 990 9 994 996 99 000 002 00 006 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1966 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1986 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2

Graph 7.2 The five major concepts of citizenship discourse traced from 1946 - 2007

233 Table 7.3 Groupings of the five major concepts in citizenship discourse from 1967 – 2006 as represented on 27 January. Year Front Page Articles Editorial Letters Other texts 1967 W W+M 1969 P 1970 I W I+M 1971 I 1973 W 1974 P+E 1975 M 1977 P 1978 P 1979 I 1981 W+I+M 1983 I I 1984 I 1986 W 1987 I 1988 I 1989 I 1990 M 1991 I 1992 W, W 1994 P 1995 W 1996 W, P 1997 W+I, I 1998 W+I 1999 P, I, M+I 2000 I

234 Year Front Page Articles Editorial Letters Other texts 2003 I 2006 M W I Totals 12 14 3 2 4

Table 7.4 Groupings of the five major concepts in citizenship discourse as referred to in the Editorial and Letters in relation to key texts from 1946 – 2006 as represented on 26 January. Year Editorial Letters White Indigenous Migrant P/Equality Texts 1946 √ √√ √ W2 1947 √ √ √- 1948 √ √ √ 1949 √ √ √ W, I4 1950 √ 1951 W, M 1952 √ √ 1953 √ W, E, I 1954 √ √ M 1955* √ √ W2 1956 M2, W 1957 √ √ √ W 1958* √ √ I2, W 1959 √ √ √ W 1960 W2 1961 √ √ √ W- 1962* E+, I+ 1963 W2+ 1964* W- 1965 √ √ 1966

235 1967 1968 √ √ W2 1969* √ √ I 1970 W26 1971 √ √ I (2) 1972 √ √ I (3) 1973 √ I26 1974 √ √√ √ M26 1975* √W √ I26 1976 √ √ W 1977 √W √ √√ PW26 1978 √PE+ 1979 √ √ I 1980 √ √ M- N 1981 √ √P/E √ √ W, 1982 √P/E 1983 √ I, 1984 √ III, 1985 √ √ I 1986 N 1987 √ √ W 1988 √I √ √ III, 1989 √ MM, 1990 √W W 1991 WMW 1992 U √ E 1993 √I √ I, I 1994 √E √ 1995 √W W W 1996 √I √ √E 27W

236 1997 √ WWW 1998 √E √ √E 1999 √E √E 2000 √W √ W, 2001 √ √ √ √ I 2002 √ √ √ √E WN 2003 I 2004 √ √E PIWIE 2005 I 2006 √W P WWWIMWM

Total 36 6 22 14 13 14

237 Table 7.5 The five major concepts in the citizenship archive as portrayed on 27 January Year Editorial Letters White Indigenous Migrant P/Equality Texts 1967 √ √ √ √ 1970 √ √√ 1973 √ √ 1974 √ 1975 √ 1977 √ 1978 √√ 1979 √ 1981 √ √ √ 1983 √ 1984 √ 1987 √ 1988 √ √ 1989 √ 1990 √ 1991 √ 1992 √ 1994 √ √ 1995 √ 1996 √ √ 1997 √ √√ 1998 √ √ 1999 √ √ √ 2000 √ 2003 √ 2006 √ Total 1 0 12 14 7 5 1

238 Table 7.6 Transmission of dominant and minority perspectives on January 26 or January 27 * for every year from 1946-2007 where ^ = ‘commenting on’. Quote Type Years W ^ W 1946, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1967*, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1970*, 1971, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1986*, 1987, 1988, 1988*, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1992*, 1994, 1994*, 1995, 1996*, 1997, 1997*, 1998*, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2006* W ^ I 1946, 1949, 1953, 1955, 1958, 1962, 1969, 1970*, 1971, 1971*, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1981, 1983, 1983*, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1988*, 1989, 1989*, 1991*, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997*, 1998*, 1999*, 2000*, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2003*, 2004, 2005, 2006 W ^ M 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1964, 1967*, 1973, 1974, 1975*, 1979, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992*, 1995, 1995*, 1999*, 2002, 2006, 2006* W ^ P, W ^ E 1953E, 1965E, 1969*P, 1974*P, 1977P, 1977*P, 1978E, 1978*P, 1979P, 1981P, 1981E, 1982E, 1983*P, 1987E, 1991E, 1994E, 1994P, 1996E, 1997E, 1999, 1999*P, 2004E, 2006P

I ^ I 1972, 1979*, 1983, 1984, 1988, 1993, 2006* I ^ W 1984*, 1986, 1987*, 1999*, 2000, 2001, 2006* I ^ M 1988, I ^ P 1997E M ^ M M ^ I M ^ W

239 M ^ P 1996*P P ^ P P ^ W P ^ I P ^ M

240 Majority and Minority Voices 1946-2006

60

50

W^W W^I 40 W^M W^P W^E I^I Value 30 I^W I^M I^P I^E 20 M^M M^W M^I M^P 10 M^E

0 Type

Graph 7.7 Majority and minority voices and their perspectives1946 – 2006

241 Majority and Minority Actors

60

50

40

Value 30

20

10

0 W^W W^I W^M W^P W^E I^I I^W I^M I^P I^E M^M M^W M^I M^P M^E Positioning

Graph 7.8 The major concerns of authorised voices from 1946 - 2007

242 References Aeschylus. (1959). The Oresteian Trilogy. Translation Vellacott, P. London, Penguin.

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin, Philosophy and other essays. London, New Left Books.

Ambrose, S. (2002). To America. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, Verso.

Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large. Minneapolis, Public Worlds.

Appadurai, A., ed. (2000). Public Culture. Globalization. Durham, Duke University Press.

Arendt, H. (1994). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. London, Penguin.

Argy, F. (2003). Where to from here? Crows Nest, Allen and Unwin.

Aristotle. (1992). The Politics. Translated by T. A. Sinclair, revised and re-presented by T. J. Saunders. London, Penguin.

Asen, R. (2002). Visions of Poverty. East Lansing, Michigan State University Press.

Aurelius, M. (2003). Meditations. London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson History.

Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce (2008). Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper Submission (viewed on 28/2/2009) at: www.climatechange.gov.au/greenpaper/consultation/pubs/0514-aicc.pdf

Baudrillard, J. (2000). The Vital Illusion. New York, Columbia University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. London, Routledge.

Bauman, Z. (1997). Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Beiner, Ed. (1995). Theorizing Citizenship. Political Theory: Contemporary Issues. Albany, State University of New York Press.

Bentley, M. (2000). Modern Historiography. London, Routledge.

Bergsten, C. F. (2000). The backlash against globalization. Trilateral Commission, Tokyo, Japan, Institute for International Economics.

243 Bernauer, J. (1987) ‘michel foucault’s ecstatic thinking’ (pp.45-82) in The Final Foucault edited by James Bernauer and David Rasmussen (1988). Cambridge, MIT Press.

Billig, M. (2001). Discursive, Rhetorical and Ideological Messages in Wetherell et al (2001a).

Bird, C., ed. (1998). The Stolen Children. Sydney, Random House.

Blainey, G. (2001). The Tyranny of Distance. Sydney, Pan Macmillan.

Bouchard, D. F., Ed. (1977). Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by Michel Foucault. Oxford, Blackwell.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in Question. New York, Sage Press.

Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Migration Branch (2003). Immigration, Population and Citizenship Digest (2002). Canberra, DIMIA.

Briggs, J. (2003). Power, prosperity and promise: a history of the USA 1898 - 1941. Sydney, McGraw-Hill.

Briggs, J. (2004). "The Unequal Citizen: Australians in the era of globalisation." Teaching History Journal, History Teachers Association Volume 38(No.2).

Briggs, J. (2005). The Cold War. Sydney, McGraw-Hill.

Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research. (1995). Australian Citizenship 1991 Census Statistical Report No. 15. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Burns, R. B. (2000). Introducing Research Methods. Sydney, Longman.

Campbell, T., Goldsworthy, J. and Stone, A. (2006). Protecting Rights without a Bill of Rights. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Carabine, J. (2001). ‘Unmarried Motherhood 1830-1990: A Genealogical Approach’ in Wetherell et al (2001b).

Carlton, M. (2004). The recipe for a riot. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Weekend edition, Weekend Edition, 21 – 22 February, p. 26.

244 Castells, M. (1998). Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development. UNRISD Conference on Information Technologies and Social Development, Geneva.

Castells, M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Cavanagh, J. (2002). Alternatives to Economic Globalization. San Francisco, Berret- Koehler.

Chomsky, N. (1992). Deferring Democracy. London, Vantage Books.

Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or Survival. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Chomsky, N. (2007). Interventions. Melbourne, Penguin.

Chouliaraki, L. and Fairclough., N (1999). Discourse in Late Modernity. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.

Clark, M. (1997). A Short History of Australia. New York, Penguin

Coleman, A. and Higgins, W. (2000). Race and Cultural Diversity, in Vandenberg, A., ed. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Cotton, J. and Ravenhill, J., ed. (2001). The National Interest in a Global Era. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

Cox, E. (2000). ‘Feminism and Citizenship’ in Rethinking Australian Citizenship, Wayne Hudson and John Kane ed. (2000). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Curthoys, A. and Docker, J. (2007). Is History Fiction? Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.

Curtin, J. (2000). ‘The Gendering of ‘Citizenship’ in Australia’, in Vandenberg, A., ed. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Davidson, A. (1997). From Subject to Citizen. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, A. (2000). Democracy, Class and Citizenship in a Globalising World in Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era edited by Andrew Vandenberg (2000). London, Macmillan Press.

Davis, M. (2006). ‘Chained to the Past: The Psychological Terra Nullius’, in Campbell, T., Goldsworthy, J. and Stone, A. (2006). Protecting Rights without a Bill of Rights. Aldershot, Ashgate.

245 Day, D. (2005). Claiming A Continent. Sydney, Harper Perennial.

Deleuze, G. (2006). Foucault. London, Continuum.

Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1977). Anti-Oedipus. New York, Viking Press.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2007). Reader’s Guide: Australian Citizenship Act 2007. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. www.citizenship.gov.au

Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1988). Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Handbook. Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997). What it means to be an Australian Citizen. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia. van Dijk, T. A. ed. (1985). Discourse and Communication. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News Analysis. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. Routledge, London. van Dijk, T. A. (1997a). Political Discourse and Racism: Describing Others in Western Parliaments in Riggins, S.H. (1997) The Language and Politics of Discourse. Thousand Oaks, Sage. van Dijk, T. A. (1997b). Opinions and Ideologies in the Press in Bell, A. and Garrett, P. (1998). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford, Blackwell. van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Multidisciplinary CDA: a plea for diversity, in Critical Discourse Analysis by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. (2001). London, SAGE Publications Inc.

Dodson, P. (2004). No threat in giving indigenous ways a place in the life of Australia. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. 26 January, p. 15.

Duff, E. and Neufield, S. (2004). What it means to be Australian. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: 25 January, p. 52 - 53.

Dutton, D. (1999). Citizenship in Australia: A Guide to Commonwealth Government Records. Canberra, National Archives of Australia.

Dutton, D. (2002) One of Us? A century of Australian citizenship. Sydney, UNSW Press.

246 Easterlin, R. A. (2000). "The globalisation of human development." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 570: 32 - 48.

Edgar, A. (2006). Habermas. Milton Park, Routledge.

Ester, H. (2007). The media, in Hamilton, C. and Maddison, S. (2007). Silencing Dissent. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Fairclough, N. (1995). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, Polity.

Fairclough, N. (2001a). Language and Power. Edinburgh, Pearson Education.

Fairclough, N. (2001b). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. R. a. M. Wodak, M. London, SAGE Publications Inc.

Farr, M. (2007). Turnbull a winner in PM’s Cabinet reshuffle. (pp.1 and 4). Sydney, Daily Telegraph. Wednesday 24 January 2007.

Ferretter, L. (2006). Louis Althusser. London, Routledge.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Flynn, T. (1987). foucault as parrhesiast: his last course at the college de france (pp.102 – 118), in The Final Foucault (1988b), edited by James Bernauer and David Rasmussenn, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Foucault, M. (1971a). L’ordre du discourse. Paris, Gallimard.

Foucault, M. (1971b) Human Nature: Justice versus Power, a debate featuring Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky from Dutch television available on ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (DVD) by Noam Chomsky

Foucault, M. (1971c). The Will to Knowledge, cited in Foucault 2.0 by Eric Paras (2006), p. 57. New York, Other Press.

Foucault, M. (1974). ‘Prisons et asiles dans le mecanisme du pouvoir’ in Foucault, M. (1994) Dits et Ecrits, t. II. Paris, Gallimard cited in Michel Foucault by Clare O’Farrell (2005) p. 50.

Foucault, M. (1977). language, counter memory and practice. Bouchard, D. (ed.) Ithaca, Cornell University Press.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. New York, Pantheon.

247 Foucault, M. (1988a). “The Concerns for Truth”, in Kritzman, L.D. ed. ‘Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture’ . New York, Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1988b). The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom translated by J. D. Gauthier, in The Final Foucault. Edited by Bernauer, J. and Rasmussen, D. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Foucault, M. (1989). Foucault Live. New York, Semiotext(e).

Foucault, M. (1991a). Discipline and Punish. New York, Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1991b). What is an Author? in The Foucault Reader, Rabinow, P (ed.) London, Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1991c). Rabinow, P (ed.). The Foucault Reader, London, Penguin.

Foucault, M (1991d). ‘Nietzsche, Geneaology, History’, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, in The Foucault Reader edited by Paul Rabinow (1991) London, Penguin.

Foucault, M (1991e). ‘On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Working in Progress, in ‘The Foucault Reader’ edited by Paul Rabinow (1991) London, Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1998). The History of Sexuality (Volume 1). London, Allen Lane.

Foucault, M. (2001). Fearless Speech. New York, Semiotext(e).

Foucault, M. (2002a). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London, Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2002b). Madness and Civilization. London, Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2006a). La societe punitive. Cours au College de France: 1972 – 1973. in Paras, E. (2006). Foucault 2.0: beyond power and knowledge. New York, Other Press.

Foucault, M. (2006b). The Order of Things. London, Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2007). Security, Territory, Population – Lectures at the College de France, 1977-1978. Trans. Graham Burchell. New York, Palgrave MacMillan.

Fraser, M. (2007). ‘Politics overrides the rule of law’ at http://www.australiansall.com.au/politics-overrides-the-rule-of-law/ viewed on 14:4:2007.

Friedman, T. (2000). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. London, Harper-Collins.

248 Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. London, Penguin.

Fukuyama, F. (2001). Economic Globalization and Culture. A Discussion with Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Merril Lynch Corporation.

Galbraith, J. (1983). The Anatomy of Power. Boston, Houghton Miflin.

Galligan, B. and Roberts. W. (2004). Australian Citizenship. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press. Garton, S. (2003). ‘On the defensive: poststructuralism and Australian cultural history’ in Cultural History in Australia (2003) ed. Teo, H-M and White, R. Sydney, University of NSW Press.

George, S. (2001). "Another World is Possible." Dissent Volume 48, issue1.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. London, Sage.

Gibson, J. (2007) PM blasts ‘sickening’ gang videos. The Sydney Morning Herald. www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/01/24/1169518746379.html viewed on 16/12/2008.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World. New York. Routledge.

Gilovich, T. (2001). How we know what isn't so. New York, Free Press.

Gittins, R. (2003). The truth that economists forgot: we're human. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. Weekend edition, 7 – 8 June, p. 46.

Gittins, R. (2004a). The status race nobody wins. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney. 17 March, p. 13.

Gittins, R. (2004b). We can't blame CEOs for the rich-poor divide. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: 9 June, p. 19.

Gittins, R. (2004c). Taking prisoners on the moral high ground. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: 12 - 13 June, p. 44.

Gittins, R. (2007). Gittinomics. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Glatthorn, A. (1998). Writing the Winning Dissertation. Thousand Oaks, Corwin Press.

Goot, M. and Rowse, T. (2007). Divided Nation? Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.

249 Gordon, C. (1980). Preface, p.p. vii-x, in Power/Knowledge, by Michel Foucault, edited by Colin Gordon, New York, Pantheon.

Gordon, C. (1991). ‘Governmental Rationality: An Introduction’, in The Foucault Effect, ed. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago, University of Chicago Press,

Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (1997). The New Language of Qualitative Method. Oxford, Oxford Press.

Gutting, G. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Gutting, G. (2001). French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge, Polity Press.

Hage, G. (2006) Racism is not simply black and white, p.13. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney, 12 June 2006.

Hall, R. (1989). The Black Diggers. North Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Hamilton, C. (2002). The triumph of ideology: environment. Globalisation. C. Sheil. Sydney, UNSW Press.

Hamilton, C. (2004). Exclusion of some is a sad lesson on values. (p. 11. Tuesday, May 25). Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney.

Hamilton, C. and Maddison, S. (2007). Silencing Dissent. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Hayek, F. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. and Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers & Schooling Making A Difference. Sydney, Allen & Unwin.

Heater, D. (1999). What is Citizenship? Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1975). Logic. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Held, D. a. McGrew, A., Ed. (2002). Governing Globalization. Cambridge, polity.

Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing Consent. London, Vantage.

250 Hindess, B. (2000). Representative Government and Participatory Democracy, in Vandenberg, A., Ed. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Hirst, J. (2002). Australia's Democracy. Crows Nest, Allen and Unwin.

Hobbes, T. (1608). Leviathan, ed. Tuck, R. (1991) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Hollinger, R. (1994). Postmodernism and the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.

Hooper, C. (2007). Island of lost souls. The Observer, London. 23 July 2007.

Horne, D. (1964). The Lucky Country: Australia in the sixties. Sydney, Angus and Robertson.

Horne, D. (1994). Teaching Young Australians to be Australian Citizens: A 2001 Centennial National Priority. National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University, Melbourne.

Horne, D. (2001). Something fishy in the mainstream? Unity and Diversity. H. Irving. Sydney, ABC: 1-19.

Irving, H., Ed. (2001). Unity and Diversity. Sydney, ABC Books.

Irving, H. (2006). ‘Rights and citizenship in law and public discourse’ in Campbell, T., Goldsworthy, J. and Stone, A. (2006). Protecting Rights without a Bill of Rights. Aldershot, Ashgate.

Isin and Wood (1999). Citizenship and Identity. London, Thousand Oaks.

Jager, S. (2001). Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of a critical discourse and dispositive analysis. Critical Discourse Analysis. R. a. M. Wodak, M. London, SAGE Publications Inc.

Jameson, F. (2001). Globalization as a Philosophical Issue. The Cultures of Globalization. F. a. M. Jameson, M. Durham, Duke University Press.

Jameson, F. and Miyoshi M., ed. (2001). The Cultures of Globalisation. Durham, Duke University Press.

Jenkins, K. (1991). Re-thinking History. London, Routledge.

Jopson, D. (2004). It takes a riot for Australia to care about these kids. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: February 21 – 22, pp.25, 32 and 33.

251 Jopson, D. (2004). Aborigines treated like Nazi slaves, says report. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: March 1, p. 5.

Jopson, D. (2004). Where are the stolen wages? Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: March 1, p. 11.

Jordens, A-M. (1994). Promoting Australian Citizenship 1949 – 1971. Administration, Compliance and Governability Program, Working Paper No. 22. August 1994. Canberra, Australian National University.

Kellner, D. (2002). Globalization, Technopolitics and Revolution. Los Angeles, UCLA.

Kendall, G. and Wickham., G. (1999). Using Foucault's methods. London, Sage.

Kent, A. (2001). ‘Australia and the International Human Rights Regime’ in Cotton, J. and Ravenhill, J. ed. (2001). The National Interest in a Global Era. South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.

King, A., ed. (1997). Culture, Globalization and the World-System. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

Lakoff, G. (2006). Don’t Think of an Elephant! Melbourne, Scribe Short Books.

Landes, D. (2002). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. London, Abacus.

Lane, P. H. (1990). An Introduction to the Australian Constitution. Sydney, The Law Book Company Limited.

Lane, R. J. (2000). Jean Baudrillard. London, Routledge. le Bon, G. (1996). The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Etext #445, Gutenberg Project.

Linklater, A. (2002). Measuring America. London, Harper-Collins.

Lowes, D. (2006). The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary. Black Point, Fernwood Publishing.

Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Luntz, F. (2007). Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say It’s What People Hear. New York, Hyperion.

Macey, D. (2001). Critical Theory. London, Penguin.

Machiavelli, N. (1513/1999). The Prince. London, Penguin Books.

252 Manne, R. (1998) Perspectives Section 7 in Bird, C. (1998) The Stolen Generation.

Manning, P. (2004). Dog Whistle Politics and Journalism. Broadway, The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism.

Manning, P. (2006). Us and Them. Sydney, Random House.

Manning, P. (2007). Quoted in New South Wales Teachers’ Federation (NSWTF) ‘Education’ article, ‘Teachers’ role to talk about media and racism’ by Amber Flohm, April 2, 2007, p.8. Sydney, NSWTF.

Marcuse, H. (1972a). Negations. Harmondsworth, Penguin University Books.

Marcuse, H. (1972b). Counterrevolution and Revolt. Boston, Beacon Press.

Marcuse, H. (1998). Technology, War and Fascism. London, Routledge.

Marginson, S. (1993). Education and Public Policy in Australia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. (1997a). Educating Australia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Marginson, S. (1997b). Markets in Education. Sydney, Allen and Unwin.

Marginson, S. (2001). Global Schooling and Social Capital. National Education Summit 2002, Melbourne.

Marsh, I. (2003). Australia’s Choices. Sydney, UNSW Press.

Marshall, T. H. (1949). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marwick, A. (1980). Class: Image and Reality. London, Collins.

Marx, K. (1867/1990). Capital Volume 1. London, Penguin.

Marx, K. and Engel, F. (1848/1985). The Communist Manifesto. London, Penguin.

McConnochie, K., Hollinsworth, D. and Pettman, J. (1989). Race and Racism in Australia. Wentworth Falls, Social Science Press Australia.

McGregor, C. (2001). Class in Australia. Ringwood, Penguin.

McKnight, D. (2005). Beyond Right and Left. Crows Nest, Allen & Unwin.

Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London, Routledge.

253 Mills, S. (2004). Discourse. London, Routledge.

Minniecon, R. (2004). Despair the reality for a race lost in the alien space of Redfern. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: February 17, p. 15. Monbiot, G. (2004). The Age of Consent. London, Harper Perennial.

Moorhouse, F. (2004). A sense of privilege poisons our schooling. Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: Wednesday April 7, p. 17.

Murray, L. (2007). Andrews to lead drive for citizens. Sydney, Daily Telegraph, Wednesday 24 January, p.6.

Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals and Other Writings. Translated by K. A. Pearson and C. Dicthe (1994) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Nietzsche, F. (1901). The Will To Power. Translated by W. Kaufman and R. J. Hollingdale (1968). New York, Vintage Books.

O'Donnell, K. (2003). Postmodernism. Oxford, Lion Books.

O’Farrell, C. (1997). Foucault: The Legacy. Brisbane, Queensland University of Technology.

O'Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London, Sage.

O'Farrell, P. J. (1986). The Irish in Australia. Sited in the SMH Friday, January 16, 2004 p.28 "Irishness the core of our character" Edited by Suzy Baldwin. Obituary by Elizabeth Malcolm for Patrick James O'Farrell (1933 – 2003).

Oksala, J. (2007). Foucault. London, Granta Books.

O’Neill, M. (2008). Blind Conscience. Sydney, University of New South Wales Press.

Ong, A. (1999). Flexible Citizenship. Durham, Duke University.

Orchard, L. (2001). It never has been easy: democracy. Globalisation Australian Impacts. C. Sheil. Sydney, University of New South Wales.

Orwell, G. (2004). Why I Write. London, Penguin.

Paras, E. (2006). Foucault 2.0: beyond power and knowledge. New York, Other Press.

Parliament, New South Wales. (1997). Aboriginal Reconciliation Debate. Legislative Assembly, 14 November 1996. Sydney, NSW Parliamentary Library.

Peel, M. (2003). The Lowest Rung. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

254 Petersen, A. Barns, I. Dudley, J. and Harris, P. (1999). Poststructuralism, Citizenship and Social Policy. London, Routledge.

Peterson, N. and Sanders., W., ed. (1998). Citizenship and Indigenous Australians. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Phillips, K. (2002). Wealth and Democracy. New York, Broadway Books.

Phillips, N. and Hardy, C. Discourse Analysis. Thousand Oaks. Sage Publications.

Probert, B. (2001). Class in the year 2001, in Unity and Diversity (pp 20 – 45). H. Irving, ed. Sydney, ABC Books.

Pryles, M. (1982). Legal Aspects of Citizenship, in Citizenship and Human Rights, Multicultural Australian Papers 21. Ecumenical Migration Centre. Richmond, Clearing House on Migration Issues.

Pusey, M. (2003). The Experience of Middle Australia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Rabinow, P., ed. (1991). The Foucault Reader. London, Penguin.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Boston, Harvard University Press.

Read, P. (2007). The Stolen Generations. Surry Hills, Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Reynolds, H. (1982). The other side of the frontier: Aboriginal resistance to the European invasion of Australia. Melbourne, Penguin.

Reynolds, H. (1987). The Law of the Land. Melbourne, Penguin.

Reynolds, H. (1999). Why weren’t we told? Ringwood, Viking.

Rhodes, R., ed. (2000). Visions of Technology. New York, Touchstone.

Rifkin, J. (2000). The Age of Access. London, Penguin.

Riggins, S. H., ed. (1997). The Language and Politics of Exclusion. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Robb, A. (2006). Australian Citizenship: more than just a ceremony. Discussion paper September 2006. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Canberra, at http://www.citizenship.gov.au/news/DIMA_Citizenship_Discussion_Paper.pdf (9/10/2006).

Roberts, B. R. (1995). The Making of Citizens. London, Arnold.

255 Root, A. (2007). Market Citizenship. SAGE publications, London.

Russell, B. (1938). Power: A New Social Analysis. New York, W. W. Norton.

Russell, B. (2001). The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Said, E. (2003). Orientalism. London, Penguin.

Sarup, M. (1988). An Introductory Guide to Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Saul, J. R. (1995). The Doubter's Companion. Ringwood, Penguin.

Saunders, P. (2005). The Poverty Wars. Sydney, UNSW Press.

Schlesinger, A., ed. (1973). The Dynamics of World Power. A Documentary History of United States Foreign Policy. New York, Chelsea House/McGraw-Hill.

Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (2005). Deserving and Entitled. New York, State University of New York Press.

Schumpeter, J. (1942/1976). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York, Harper Perennial.

Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Shanahan, M. (2003). Globalisation and Inequality. Shanahan, M. and Treuren, G., Ed. (2003). ‘Globalisation’. Australian Regional Perspectives. Adelaide, Wakefield Press.

Shanahan, M. and Treunen, G., Ed. (2003). ‘Globalisation’. Australian Regional Perspectives. Adelaide, Wakefield Press.

Sheil, C., Ed. (2001). Globalisation: Australian impacts. Sydney, University of New South Wales.

Singer, P. (1997). How are we to live? Sydney, Random House.

Singer, P. (2002). one world. Melbourne, The Text Publishing Company.

Singer, P. and Gregg, T. (2004). How ethical is Australia? Melbourne, Black Inc.

Smart, B. (2002). Michel Foucault. London, Routledge.

Smith, A. (1991). The Wealth of Nations. Amherst, Prometheus.

256 Smith, R., Vromen, A. and Cook, I. (2006). Key words in Australian politics. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.

Souter, G. (1981). Company of Heralds. Melbourne, Melbourne University Press.

Spender, D. (1990). Man Made Language. London, Pandora.

Stearns, P. (2001). Consumerism in World History. London, Routledge.

Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Stiglitz, J. (2002). Globalization and its discontents. Camberwell, Allen Lane.

Sturrock, J. (2003). Structuralism. Malden, Blackwell.

Sullivan, B. (2000). ‘Sexual Citizenship’, in Rethinking Australian Citizenship, Wayne Hudson and John Kane ed. (2000). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Tabb, W. (2002). Unequal Partners. New York, New Press.

Tanner, L. (2003). Crowded Lives. Melbourne, Pluto Press.

Teo, H. and White, R., ed. (2003). Cultural History in Australia. Sydney, University of New South Wales.

Thompson, E. (2001a). The Australian Commonwealth: One Hundred Years of Continuity and Change, in H. Irving (2001), Unity and Diversity (pp 237 – 252). Sydney, Random House.

Thompson, E. (2001b). ‘Challenges to Egalitarianism’ in H. Irving, (2001). Unity and Diversity. (pp 69 – 87). Sydney, Random House:

Thompson, N. (2003). Promoting Equality. Houndmills, Palgrave MacMillan.

Thwaites, T. et al (2002). Introducing cultural and media studies. Basingstoke, Palgrave.

Tiffen, R. and Gittins, R. (2004). How Australia compares. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.

Toynbee, A. (1948). Civilizations on Trial: Essays. New York, Oxford University Press.

Treuren, G. (2003). Why isn't the State withering away? Globalisation Australian Regional Perspectives. M. a. T. Shanahan, G. Adelaide, Wakefield Press.

Turner, B. (1994). Outline of a Theory of Citizenship in, Turner, B. and Hamilton, P. (1994) Citizenship: Critical Concepts Volume I, Routledge, London.

257 Turner, B. (2000). Liberal Citizenship and Cosmopolitan Virtue in, Vandenberg, A., Ed. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real Freedom, Clarendon Press.

Vandenberg, A., ed. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Macmillan Press Ltd.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. New York (Harvard College), The President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Wallerstein, I. (2000). The National and the Universal: Can There Be Such a Thing as World Culture? Culture, Globalization and the World System. A. King. Minneapolis.

Walter, J. and MacLeod, M. (2002). The Citizens’ Bargain. Sydney. UNSW Press.

Ward, G. (2003). Postmodernism. London, Hodder Education.

Ward, I. (1998). ‘The media, power and politics’ in Government, Power, Politics and Policy in Australia, eds Parkin, A. Summers, J. and Woodward, D. Sydney, Pearson Longman.

Weber, M. (1954). Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.

Weber, M. (1962/2002). Basic Concepts in Sociology. New York, Citadel Press.

Wells, W. (2003). American Capitalism, 1945-2000. Chicago, Ivan R. Dee.

Western, J. S. (1983). Social Inequality in Australian Society. South Melbourne, The Macmillan Company of Australia.

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism. New York, Columbia University Press.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (eds) (2001a). Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London, Sage.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S.J. (eds) (2001b). Discourse as Data. Milton Keynes, Sage Publications.

Williams, G. (1999). French Discourse Analysis. London, Routledge.

Williams, J. (2005). Poststructuralism. Chesham, Acumen.

258 Windschuttle, K. (1996). The Killing of History. Sydney, Macleay Press.

Windschuttle, K. (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History. Sydney, Macleay Press.

Windschuttle, K. (2005). The White Australia Policy. Sydney, Macleay Press.

Wodak, R. (2001). The Discourse - Historical Approach, in Critical Discourse Analysis by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. (2001). London, SAGE Publications Inc.

Wodak, R. (2004). What CDA is about – a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments, in Critical Discourse Analysis by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. (2004). London, SAGE Publications Inc.

Note: The references above do not include the Australia Day (i.e. January 26 or 27) editions from The Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun Herald from 1946 – 2007 as the texts are fully referenced within Chapter Five.

259